Skip to main content

Full text of "The romance of Bible chronology : an exposition of the meaning, and a demonstration of the truth of every chronological statement contained in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament"

See other formats


V 



UNIVERSITY OF 
ILLINOIS LIBRARY 
AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN 
BOOKSTACKS 



The person charging this material is re- 
sponsible for its return to the library from 
which it was withdrawn on or before the 
Latest Date stamped below. 

Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons 
for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from 
the University. 

To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400 

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 





SI?} 




CEC 1 1 1982 







JIM 1319(7 



SEP 2 5 1987 
FEB 0 6 1989 
SEP I 3 1991 

r 10 



L161 



— O-1096 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2014 



https://archive.org/details/romanceofbiblech01anst 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



THE 

ROMANCE OF 
BIBLE CHRONOLOGY 

An Exposition of the meaning, and a Demonstration 
of the Truth, of every Chronological statement 
contained in the Hebrew Text of the 
Old Testament, 



Volume I. 
THE TREATISE. 

BY THE 

Rev. MARTIN ANSTEY, B.D., M.A. (London). 



MARSHALL BROTHERS, LTD., 
LONDON, EDINBURGH and NEW YORK,, 
I9I3- 



V.I 



Dedication* 

To my dear Friend 

Rev. G. CAMPBELL MORGAN, D.D. 

to whose inspiring Lectures on 

" The Divine Library in Human History " 

I trace the inception of these pages, and whose intimate 
knowledge and unrivalled exposition of the Written Word 
makes audible in human ears the Living Voice of the 
Living God, 

I Dedicate this Book. 

THE AUTHOR. 

October 3rd, 1913. 



239213 



FOREWORD. 



By Rev. G. Campbell Morgan, D.D. 

It is with pleasure, and yet with reluctance, that I have consented to preface 
this book with any words of mine. 

The reluctance is due to the fact that the work is so lucidly done, that 
any setting forth of the method or purpose by way of introduction would 
be a work of supererogation. 

The pleasure results from the fact that the book is the outcome of our 
survey of the Historic movement in the redeeming activity of God as seen 
in the Old Testament, in the Westminster Bible School. While I was giving 
lectures on that subject, it was my good fortune to have the co-operation 
of Mr. Martin Anstey, in a series of lectures on these dates. My work was 
that of sweeping over large areas, and largely ignoring dates. He gave his 
attention to these, and the result is the present volume, which is invaluable 
to the Bible Teacher, on account of its completeness and detailed accuracy. 

Bible study is the study of the Bible. There are many methods and 
departments ; none is without value ; all of them, when done thoroughly 
rather than superficially, tend to the deepening of conviction as to the 
accuracy of the records. 

In no case is this more marked than in departments which are incidental 
rather than essential. 

If, in such a matter as that of dates — which seems to be purely incidental, 
and is of such a general nature that few have taken the trouble to pay 
particular attention to it — the method of careful study shows that these 
apparently incidental references are nevertheless accurate and harmonious, 
then a testimony full of value is borne to the integrity of the writings. 

To this work Mr. Anstey has given himself, with great care, and much 
scholarship. The results are full of fascination, and are almost startling 
in their revelation of the harmony of the Biblical scheme. 

The method has been that of independent study of the writings them- 
selves, with an open mind, and determination to hide nothing, and to explain 
nothing away. 

The careful and patient student is the only person who will be able to 
appreciate the value of this work ; and all such will come to its study with 
thankfulness to the Author ; and having minds equally open and honest, 
will be able to verify or correct. In this process I venture to affirm that 
the corrections will be few, and the verification constant. 

Westminster Chapel, 

Buckingham Gate, S.W., 
October nth, 1913. 



7 



6 to\/ulwv Tt 7rapa\d(T(T€LV twv yey pajUL/ULCvoov ct7r' apyrjs, ovk ev o§(p a\ti0ela$ 

L<TT(XTai. 

He who attempts to alter any part of the Scriptures, from indolence 
or incapacity, stands not in the path of Truth. 

Epiphanius Against Heresies, Book I. 



PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR. 



The Studies embodied in the following pages have been undertaken with a 
view to ascertaining and exhibiting the exact chronological relation of every 
dated event recorded in the Old Testament. The object of the writer is the 
production of a Standard Chronology, which shall accurately represent the 
exact date at which each event took place, so far as this can be ascertained 
from the statements contained in the text itself. 

No other dates are given. All merely approximate or estimated dates 
are omitted as inexact. All merely probable or conjectural dates, inferred 
from speculative reconstructions of the historical situation, and not guaranteed 
by the words of the text, are rejected as unverifiable. All dates certainly 
known, but derived from other sources — such as profane history and modern 
discovery — are excluded from the Chapters on the Chronology of the Old 
Testament. They appear only in the Chapters on Comparative Chronology 
and in the Chronological Tables (Vol. II). The Chronology adopted in 
these pages is supported by Josephus, but does not lean upon him. It is, 
to some extent, confirmed by the results of modern discovery, as tabulated 
in the Guides to the Babylonian, Assyrian, and Egyptian Antiquities published 
by the Authorities of the British Museum, but it stands upon its own 
foundation, and is dependent upon none of them. 

Chronology is a branch of History. As such it is governed by the laws 
which determine the validity of the results reached by the process of scientific 
investigation and historical enquiry. It is also a branch of Applied Mathe- 
matics, and Mathematics is an exact Science. In a truly scientific Chronology 
there is no room for any date which is not demonstrably true. This view 
of the limits of the subject accounts for the absence of the note of interro- 
gation (?) after any date in the Chronological Tables, and for the somewhat 
dogmatic or Euclidian tone in which the conclusions reached by this method 
are expressed. Like Mathematics, Chronology has its axioms, its postulates, 
and its definitions, of which the most important and the most fundamental 
is the trustworthiness of the testimony of honest, capable, and contemporary 
witnesses, like that of the men whose testimony is preserved in the Records 
of the Old Testament. 



9 



CONTENTS. 



VOLUME I.— THE TREATISE. 
INTRODUCTION. 



Chapter Page 

i . Scope, Method, Standpoint and Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

Other Texts and Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 

Ancient Literary Remains .... . . . . . . . . . . 16 

Ancient Monumental Inscriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 

Classic Literature of Greece and Rome . . . . . . . . . . 28 

Astronomical Observations and Calculations . . . . . . . . 34 

Ancient and Modern Chronologers . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 

2. Trustworthiness of Testimony .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 55 

3 . Canons of Credibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 



PERIOD I.— THE PATRIARCHS — Genesis. 

4. Ante-diluvian Patriarchs : Adam to Noah . . . . . . . . . . 62 

5. Noah-Shem Connection : Noah's age at Shem's birth . . . . . . . . 67 

6. Comparative Chronology : Adam to Noah . . . . . . . . . . 73 

The Hebrew, the LXX. and the Samaritan Version . . . . . . . . 74 

Theophilus, Africanus and Josephus . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 

7. Post-diluvian Patriarchs : Shem to Abraham . . . . . . . . . . 76 

8. Terah- Abraham Connection : Terah's age at Abram's birth .. .. .. 78 

9. Comparative Chronology : Shem to Abraham . . . . . . . . . . 79 

The Hebrew, the LXX. and the Samaritan Version . . . . . . . . 80 

Theophilus, Africanus, Eusebius and Josephus . . . . . . . . 80 

Evolution and the Origin of Man . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 

Archaeology and the Antiquity of Man . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 

Biblical Criticism and the Early History of Man . . . . . . . . 106 

10. Hebrew Patriarchs : Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph . . . . . . 113 

11. Joseph-Moses Connection : Joseph's death to Moses' birth .. .. .. 124 

12. Comparative Chronology: Abraham to Moses .. .. .. .. 125 

Egypt : The Merenptah Stele . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 27 

Babylon : The Khammurabi Stele . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 



PERIOD II.— THE THEOCRACY — Exodus to 1 Samuel 7. 

13. Israel in Egypt from Moses' birth to the Exodus . . . . . . . . . . 132 

14. The Forty Years in the Wilderness . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 

1 5 . Seven Years' War : Entry into Canaan to Division of Land . . . . . . 135 

16. J oshua- Judges Connection : Division of Land to Cushan .. .. .. 137 

17. The Judges, including Samuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 

18. Eli- Saul Connection : Eli's death to Saul's election .. .. .. .. 149 

19. Comparative Chronology: Moses to Samuel .. .. .. .. .. 152 

The 480 years of 1 Kings 6 1 . . . . . . . . . . 154 

Egypt : The Pharaoh of the Exodus . . . . . . . . . . 160 

1 1 



CONTENTS. 



PERIOD III.— THE MONARCHY — Samuel 8 to 2 Kings 23. 

Chapter Page 

20. Saul, David and Solomon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 

21. Israel and J udah to the Fall of Samaria .. .. .. . . .. .. 169 

First Period : Rehoboam to Jehu . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 

Second Period : Jehu to the Fall of Samaria .. .. .. .. .. 182 

22. J udah from the Fall of Samaria to the Captivity . . . . . . . . 188 

23. Comparative Chronology : Saul to the Captivity . . . . . . . . 190 

Egypt : The Shishak Inscription at Karnak .. .. .. .. .. 191 

Moab : The Moabite Stone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 

Assyria : The Assyrian Cuneiform Inscriptions . . . . . . . . 195 

Shalmaneser II (III) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 

Tiglath-pileser III (IV) 199 

Shalmaneser IV (V) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 

Sargon II . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 

Sennacherib . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 

Esar-haddon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 

Ashur-bani-pal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 

The Assyrian Eponym Canon .. .. .. .. .. 219 

PERIOD IV.— GENTILE DOMINION— 2 Kings 24 to Esther. 

24. The Captivity . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . 222 

25. The Return . . .. .. .. .. .. ... 232 

Cyrus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 

Ahasuerus (Ezra 4) = Cambyses . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 

Artaxerxes (Ezra 4) = Pseudo-Smerdis . . . . . . . . . . 239 

Darius Hystaspes = Artaxerxes (Ezra 6-Neh. 13) = Ahasuerus (Est.) .. 240 

26. Comparative Chronology : The Captivity and the Return . . . . . . 257 

The Egibi Tablets 258 

The Nabonidus Cylinder . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 258 

The Cyrus Tablet and the Cyrus Cylinder .. .. .. .. .. 259 

The Great Behistun Inscription of Darius Hystaspes . . . . . . . . 260 

Later Persian Inscriptions .. .. .. .. ... .. 261 

Josephus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 

The Old Testament Apocrypha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 

Greek writers : Herodotus, Ctesias and Xenophon . . . . . . . . 267 

Darius Hystaspes = Artaxerxes (Ezra 6- Neh. 13) . . . . . . . . 269 

Darius Hystaspes = Ahasuerus (Est.) . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 



CONCLUSION. 

27. Messiah's birth according to Daniel . . . . . . . . . . . • 275 

28. Comparative Chronology : Messiah's birth according to Ptolemy . . . . 284 

INDEX 204 

SCRIPTURE REFERENCES 299 



12 



INTRODUCTION. 

Chapter I. — Scope, Method, Standpoint and Sources. 

The purpose of the present work is to construct a Standard Chronology of 
the period covered by the writings of the Old Testament. 

In addition to the Hebrew Massoretic Text of the Old Testament, there 
are many other sources affording data for the construction of a Chronology 
of this period, of which the principal may be classified as follows : — 

I. Other Texts and Versions such as (i) the Septuagint (LXX) or 
Greek Version of the Old Testament, and (2) the Samaritan 
Pentateuch. 

2. Ancient Literary Remains, such as those fragments of Sanchoniathon 
of Phoenicia, Berosus of Chaldea, and Manetho of Egypt, which 
have come down to us ; the national traditions of Persian History 
preserved in the writings of the Persian poet, Firdusi ; the books 
of the Old Testament Apocrypha ; the works of the Jewish 
Historian Josephus, and the Talmudic Tract, Sedar Olam. 

3. Ancient Monumental Inscriptions upon Rocks, Temples, Palaces, 

Cylinders, Bricks, Steles and Tablets, and writings upon Papyrus 
Rolls, brought to light by modern discoveries in recent times. 

4. The Classic Literature of Greece and Rome. 

5. Astronomical Observations and Calculations, especially eclipses of 

the Sun, eclipses of the Moon, and the risings of Sirius the dog- 
star with the Sun. 

6. The works of Ancient and Modern Chronologers. 

The results obtained from any one of these several sources must, if true, 
be consistent with the results obtained from each of the other sources. 

The aim of the present work is to make an exhaustive critical examination 
of the data contained in the first of these several sources only, and to develop 
and construct therefrom a Standard Chronology of the events of the Old 
Testament, so far as this can be obtained from the chronological data which 
lie embedded in the Hebrew Massoretic Text of the Old Testament, and 
independently of any help which may be derived from any other source. 

The results thus obtained will be compared at every stage with those 
obtained from the data afforded by the other sources named above, but 
whilst the data afforded by the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament are made 
the subject of an exhaustive critical examination, every step in the series 
being scientifically investigated and rigorously established in accordance 
with the recognized laws of historical evidence, the data afforded by these 
other sources are not thus dealt with, but are left over for investigation by 
other workers in these several branches of chronological enquiry and research. 

13 



14 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



The establishment of a Standard Chronology of the Hebrew Text of the 
Old Testament is a first requisite for the correct interpretation of the results 
obtained from other departments of chronological study, as, without this, 
no true and sure comparison can be made between the dates given in the 
Old Testament and those obtained from other sources. 

The Method adopted is that of accurate observation and scientific historical 
induction. Each recorded fact is accepted on the authority of the text 
which contains it. Each book in the Old Testament is carefully examined,, 
and every chronological statement contained therein is carefully noted down. 
After thus collecting all the relevant statements of the text, and making a 
complete induction of all the facts, a chronological scheme is constructed,, 
in which every dated event in the Old Testament is duly charted down in 
its proper place. There is no selecting of certain facts to the exclusion of 
certain other facts. There is no attempt to reconcile apparently discrepant 
statements by conjectural emendations of the text. The scheme is not bent 
to meet the exigencies of any particular theory, but all the statements that 
bear upon the subject of Chronology are brought together and interpreted 
in relation to each other in such a way as to form one complete harmonious, 
table of events in which the whole of the relevant facts contained in the 
Old Testament are exhibited and explained in the light of the time relations, 
which obtain between them. 

An attempt is made to exhibit the results thus obtained to the eye, by 
means of Diagrams, Charts, Tables and other forms of graphic representation, 
clearness of apprehension being regarded as equally important with accuracy- 
and precision of statement, in any adequate and satisfactory presentation 
of this somewhat intricate and difficult subject. In this way an endeavour 
is made to secure a result which shall be at once both Scriptural and scholarly, 
and at the same time easy to understand. 

The present essay deals only with the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament 
in the form in which it has reached us from the hands of the Massoretes. 
That Text has an origin and a history, and our view of its origin may perhaps 
influence us in our estimate of its value and its authority. Into the question 
of the authorship, the date, and the composition of the various books of the 
Old Testament, the integrity of the Text, and the various sources from which 
it has been derived, the present writer does not now enter. In like manner, 
all questions relating to the preservation and transmission of the Text are left 
untouched, the sole aim of the writer being to ascertain and to elicit from 
the Text as it stands the chronological scheme which lies embodied therein. 
The authenticity of the records, and the accuracy of the Text in its present 
state of preservation, is taken for granted. The results obtained from this 
study will be authoritative within the limits of the authority accorded to the 
text itself. The materials afforded by the Text are dealt with in accordance 
with the requirements of modern scientific method. Care has been taken 
to secure for each step in the Chronology the value of historic proof or 
demonstration, so that each subsequent induction may proceed upon an 
assured scientific foundation. 

The authority to be accorded to the results obtained from the six other 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 15 



sources named above is that of corroborating or conflicting witnesses, not 
that of the verdict of a jury, and not that of the pronouncement of a 
Judge. 

The results obtained from the testimony of these other witnesses may be 
compared with those obtained from the Old Testament Record, but they 
must not be erected into a Standard of established Truth, and used to correct 
the testimony of the principal witness. 

(1) Other Texts and Versions. 

1. The Septuagint (LXX) is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures of 
the Old Testament into Hellenistic Greek. It was made at Alexandria in 
Egypt, a portion at a time, the Pentateuch being the portion translated first. 
The translation of the entire work occupied some 70 years (b.c. 250-180). 
It was commenced in the reign of Ptolemy II, Philadelphus, King of Egypt 
(b.c. 284-247). It was translated by Alexandrian, not Palestinian Jews, 
and was the work of a number of independent translators, or groups of trans- 
lators, separated from each other by considerable intervals of time. It was 
the work of a number of men who had none of that almost superstitious 
veneration for the letter of Scripture, which characterized the Jews of Palestine. 
A Palestinian Jew would never dare to add to, to take from, or to alter a 
single letter of the Original. The translators of the LXX, on the contrary, 
are notorious for their Hellenizing, or their modernizing tendencies, their 
desire to simplify and to clear up difficulties, their practice of altering the 
text in order to remove what they regarded as apparent contradictions, and, 
generally, their endeavour to adapt their version to the prevailing notions 
of the age, in such a way as to commend it to the learning and the culture 
of the time. Hence the centenary additions to the lives of the Patriarchs in 
order to bring the Chronology into closer accord with the notions of antiquity 
that prevailed in Egypt at that time. Like the modern critic, the LXX 
translator did not hesitate to " correct " the record, and to " emend " the 
Text, in order to make it speak what he thought it ought to say. 

2. The Samaritan Pentateuch is a venerable document written in the 
very ancient pointed Hebrew Script, which appears to have been in use (1) in 
the time of the Moabite Stone which dates from the 9th Century b.c. (2) in 
the time of the Siloam Inscription, which dates from the 7th Century B.C., 
and (3) in the time of the Maccabees, i.e., in the 2nd Century B.C. The Manu- 
script, which is of great age, is preserved in the Sanctuary of the Samaritan 
Community at Nablous (Shechem). It modifies the Hebrew Text in 
accordance with the notions prevailing amongst the descendants of the mixed 
population introduced into Samaria by the Kings of Assyria, from Sargon 
(2 Kings 17 24 ) in the 8th Century B.C. to "the great and noble Asnapper " 
(Ezra 4 10 ) probably Ashurbanipal, in the 7th Century B.C. It alters " Ebal " 
to " Gerizim " in Deuteronomy 27 4 , bears traces of a narrowing, rather than 
a broadening outlook, and represents the tendencies that prevailed amongst 
the Samaritans in the 9th to the 2nd Centuries B.C. If it is not so old as the 
LXX, the constructor of the Text may have had before him both the Hebrew 



i6 



ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



Original and the Greek LXX Version, and may have picked his own way, 
selecting now from the one, and now from the other, in accordance with his 
own predilections and his own point of view. But it is more than probable 
that the Samaritan Pentateuch is much older than the LXX, and that it 
was translated from Hebrew into Samaritan about the time of Hezekiah in 
the 8th Century B.C. (See The Samaritan Pentateuch and Modern Criticism, 
by J. Iverach Munro. M.A., 1911). 

The tendency of the modern mind, which is imbued with Greek rather 
than with Hebrew ideals, is to over-estimate the authority of the LXX as 
compared with the Hebrew. Many scholars look upon it as a translation 
of a different Hebrew Text from that preserved in our Hebrew Bibles, but 
the variations are all easily accounted for as adaptations of the Original 
Hebrew to meet the views of the Hellenized Jews of Alexandria. The 
differences in the order of the books, the various omissions and the many 
additions, show that the point of view has been changed, and though the 
framework and the main substance of the LXX is the same as that of the 
Hebrew, the modifications are sufficient to indicate that we are reading a 
translation of the same original produced in the new world of Greek culture, 
rather than the translation of a different original produced in the old world 
of Hebrew religion. The patriarchal Chronology of the LXX can be explained 
from the Hebrew on the principle that the translators of the LXX desired 
to lengthen the Chronology and to graduate the length of the lives of those 
who lived after the Flood, so as to make the shortening of human life gradual 
and continuous, instead of sudden and abrupt. The Samaritan patriarchal 
Chronology can be explained from the Hebrew. The constructor of 
the scheme lengthens the Chronology of the Patriarchs after the Flood, 
and graduates the length of the lives of the patriarchs throughout the 
entire list, both before and after the Flood, with this curious result, 
that with the exception of (1) Enoch, (2) Cainan, whose life exceeds that of 
his father by only five years, and (3) Reu, whose age at death is the same as 
that of his father, every one of the Patriarchs, from Adam to Abraham, is 
made to die a few years younger than his father. This explains why the 
Chronology of the years before the Flood is reduced by 349 years. Could 
anything be more manifestly artificial ? The LXX and the Samaritan 
Pentateuch may take their place in the witness box, but there is no room 
for them on the bench. 

(2) Ancient Literary Remains. 

Of ancient literary remains outside the classical literature of Greece and 
Rome, but little has been preserved. A collection of these, known as Cory's 
Ancient Fragments, was made and published by Isaac Preston Cory in 1832. 

1. Sanchoniathon is said to have written a History of Phoenicia, and to 
have flourished in the reign of Semiramis, the Queen of Assyria, the wife 
of Xinus, and, with him, the mythical founder of Nineveh. She lived B.C. 
2000, or according to others, B.C. 1200. Sanchoniathon was quoted by 
Porphyry (b. a.d. 233) the opponent of Christianity, in his attack on the 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 17 



writings of Moses. Porphyry says, Sanchoniathon was a contemporary of 
Gideon, B.C. 1339. His writings were translated into Greek by Philo Byblius 
in the reign of Hadrian (a.d. 76-130). Philo was a native of Byblos, a maritime 
city on the coast of Phoenicia. He had a considerable reputation for honesty, 
but some scholars believe his work to be a forgery ; others believe that he 
was himself deceived by a forger. According to Philo Byblius, Sanchoniathon 
was a native of Berytus in Phoenicia. His Phcenician History may be regarded 
as one of the most authentic memorials of the events which took place before 
the Flood, to be met with in heathen literature. It begins with a legendary 
cosmogony. It relates how the first two mortals were begotten by the Wind 
(Spirit) and his wife Baau (Darkness). It refers to the Fall, the production of 
fire, the invention of huts and clothing, the origin of the arts of agriculture, 
hunting, fishing and navigation, and the beginnings of human civilization. 
Sanchoniathon gives a curious account of the descendants of the line of Cain. 
His history of the descendants of the line of Seth reads like an idolatrous 
version of the record in Genesis. The whole system of Sanchoniathon is a 
confused, unintelligible jargon, culled from (1) the mythologies of Egypt 
and Greece, and (2) a corrupt tradition of the narrative in Genesis. It may 
well have been forged by Porphyry, or by Philo Byblius, in order to prop 
the sinking cause of Paganism, and to retard the rapid spread of Christianity 
in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries of the Christian Era. Sanchoniathon is said 
to have written, also, a history of the Serpent, to which he attributed a Divine 
nature. These fragments of Sanchoniathon, or Philo Byblius, or whoever 
the author was, have been preserved to us in the writings of Eusebius. 

2. Berosus was a Chaldean priest of Belus, at Babylon. He lived in 
the time of Alexander the Great (b.c. 356-323). About B.C. 268, he wrote 
in the Greek language a history of Babylonia from the creation, down to 
his own time. Only fragments of his work remain. These have been 
preserved to us in the pages of Apollodorus (b.c. 144), Polyhistor (b.c. 88), 
Abydenus (b.c. 60), Josephus (a.d. 37-103), Africanus (a.d. 220), and 
Eusebius (a.d. 265-340), who give varying accounts of those parts of Berosus' 
work which they quote. Berosus obtained the materials for his history 
from the archives of the temple of Belus at Babylon. His story of the creation 
of the world, of the ten generations before the Flood, and the ten generations 
after it, correspond somewhat with the Mosaic narrative in Genesis. The first 
man, Alorus, was a Babylonian. The tenth, Xisuthrus, corresponds to Noah, 
in whose reign Berosus places the great Deluge. The ten Kings before the 
Flood occupy a period of 120 Sari (Hebrew tj> = ten, a decad) or 1,200 
years, each containing 360 days, a total therefore of 432,000 days, which the 
Chaldeans in after years magnified into 432,000 years in order to enhance 
their antiquity. In the reign of the first King, Alorus, an intelligent animal 
called Oannes came out of the Red Sea, and appeared near Babylonia in 
the form of a fish with a man's head under the fish's head, and a man's feet 
which came out of the fish's tail. This is Berosus' account of Noah, who 
appears again under the name of Xisuthrus, whilst Alorus, the Nimrod of 
Genesis and the founder of Babylon, is placed at the top of the Dynasty of 
ten Kings, of which Xisuthrus, or Noah, is the tenth. Xisuthrus builds a 
B 



18 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOCxY. 

vessel, takes into it his family, and all kinds of animals and birds, and when 
the waters are abated, birds are sent out from the vessel three times, quite 
after the manner of the Biblical Noah. Mankind starts from Armenia, and 
journeys toward the plain of Shinar, following the course of the Euphrates. 
There, Nimrod, aspiring to the universal sovereignty of the world, builds 
the Tower and the City of Babel. The builders are dispersed, and the Tower 
is destroyed. There is a reference to Abraham, and a detailed account of 
the reigns of the Kings of Babylon from Nabopollasar, who overthrew the 
Empire of Assyria, to Nebuchadnezzar and his destruction of the Temple 
at Jerusalem. Berosus also mentions Evil Merodachus, Neriglissoorus, 
Laborosoarchodus, and Nabonnedus, in the 17th year of whose reign, at 
the end of the Seventy Years during which Jerusalem was in a state of 
desolation, Cyrus came out of Persia with a great army and took Babylon. 

3. Manetho, of Sebennytus in Egypt, was a learned Egyptian priest. 
At the request of Ptolemy Philadelphus, King of Egypt (B.C. 284-247), he 
wrote, in the Greek language, about the year B.C. 258, a work on Egyptian 
Antiquities, deriving his materials from ancient records in the possession 
of the Egyptian priests. The work itself is lost, but portions of it are 
preserved in Josephus, Africanus, and Eusebius. It contains a list of the 
31 dynasties of the Kings of Egypt, from Menes, the first King, with whom 
the civilization of Egypt takes its rise, to the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses 
(b.c. 529-521). Its value for historical and chronological purposes is prob- 
lematical, for (i)the accounts of the work handed down to us by Africanus 
and Eusebius contain contradictions in almost every dynasty, (2) the lists 
are incomplete, and (3) we have no means of ascertaining which of the dynasties 
are consecutive, or successive, and which are co-existent, or contemporary. 

4. The Persian Epic Poet, Firdusi (a.d. 931-1020) was born at Khorassan. 
He wrote the history of Persia in verse, from the earliest times down to a.d. 632. 
This is not Chronology. It is not even history. It is a poetic rendering of 
the legendary national traditions of Persia. The uncritical nature of the 
poet, and the unhistorical character of his work, may be gathered from the 
fact that the reigns of the first four Kings of the second, or Kaianian dynasty, 
are reckoned as follows : — 

1. Kai Kobad . . 120 years. 

2. Kai Kaoos . . 150 

3. Kai Khoosroo . . 60 

4. Lohrasp . . 120 

The unique value of Firdusi's poem arises from the fact that it gathers 
up and preserves the national Persian tradition of the Chronology of the 
period between Darius Hystaspes and Alexander the Great (B.C. 485-331), 
just as the Talmudic Tract, Sedar Olani gathers up and preserves the national 
Jewish tradition of the chronology of the same period. 

The Chronology of this period has never yet been accurately detei mined. 
The received Chronology, though universally accepted, is dependent on the 
list of the Kings, and the number of years assigned to them in Ptolemy's 
Canon. Ptolemy (a.d. 70-161) was a great constructive genius. He was the 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



19 



author of the Ptolemaic System of Astronomy. He was one of the founders 
of the Science of Geography. But in Chronology he was only a late compiler 
and contriver, not an original witness, and not a contemporary historian, 
for he lived in the 2nd Century after Christ. He is the only authority for 
the Chronology of this period. He is not corroborated. He is contradicted, 
both by the Persian National Traditions preserved in Firdusi, by the Jewish 
National Traditions preserved in the Sedar Olam, and by the writings of 
Josephus. 

It has always been held to be unsafe to differ from Ptolemy, and for this 
reason. His Canon, or List of Reigns, is the only thread by which the last 
year of Darius Hystaspes, B.C. 485, is connected with the first year of Alexander 
the Great, thus : — 

Persian Kings as Given in Ptolemy's Canon. 



1 








B.C. 


PERSIAN KINGS. 


REIGNS. 




NABONNASSARIAN 


CONNUM- 


JULIAN. 








ERA. 


ERARY. 


Cyrus 


reigned 9 yrs- 


from 


2IO 


538 


538 


Cambyses 


>> 8 




219 


529 


529 


Darius I. Hystaspes ... 


„ 36 ,, 


?5 


227 


521 


521 


Xerxes ... 


» 21 „ 


5? 


263 


485 


486 


Artaxerxes I. 










Longimanus ... 


„ 41 „ 


>J 


284 


464 


465 


! Darius II. Nothus 


>, 19 » 




325 


423 


424 


Aitaxerxes II. Mnemon 


„ 46 , 


55 


344 


404 


405 


Artaxerxes III. Ochus ... 


„ 21 „ 


55 


390 


358 


359 


Arogus or Arses... 


„ 2 „ 


JJ 


411 


337 


338 


Darius III. Codomannus 


4 » 


55 


413 


335 


336 


Alexander the Great ... 


?> ?J 


J> 


417 


33i 


332 




207 











From this 207 years of the Medo-Persian Empire, we must deduct the 
first two years of the Co-Rexship of Cyrus with Darius the Mede. This leaves 
seven years to Cyrus as sole King, the first of which, B.C. 536, is " the first 
year of Cyrus, King of Persia" (2 Chron. 36 22 ), in which he made his pro- 
clamation giving the Jews liberty to return to Jerusalem. That leaves 205 
years for the duration of the Persian Empire proper. 

In Ptolemy's Table of the Persian Kings, all the Julian years from Xerxes 
to Alexander the Great inclusive are connumerary. Therefore each requires 
to be raised a unit higher to give the Julian years in which their reigns began. 
Ptolemy reckons by the vague Egyptian year of 365 days. The Julian year 
is exactly 365J days. Had Ptolemy never written, profane Chronology 
must have remained to this day in a state of ambiguity and confusion, utterly 
unintelligible and useless, nor would it have been possible to have ascertained 
from the writings of the Greeks or from any other source, except from Scripture 
itself, the true connection between sacred Chronology and profane, in any 
one single instance, before the dissolution of the Persian Empire in the 



20 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



ist year of Alexander the Great. Ptolemy had no means of accurately 
determining the Chronology of this period, so he made the best use of the 
materials he had, and contrived to make a Chronology. He was a great 
astronomer, a great astrologer, a great geographer, and a great constructor 
of synthetic systems. But he did not possess sufficient data to enable him 
to fill the gaps, or to fix the dates of the Chronology of this period, so he 
had to resort to the calculation of eclipses. In this way then, not by historical 
evidence or testimony, but by the method of astronomical calculation, and 
the conjectural identification of recorded with calculated eclipses, the 
Chronology of this period of the world's history has been fixed by Ptolemy, 
since when, through Eusebius and Jerome, it has won its way to universal 
acceptance. It is contradicted (i) by the national traditions of Persia, (2) by 
the national traditions of the Jews, (3) by the testimony of Josephus, and 
(4) by the conflicting evidence of such well-authenticated events as the Con- 
ference of Solon with Croesus, and the flight of Themistocles to the court of 
Artaxerxes Longimanus, which make the accepted Chronology impossible. 
But the human mind cannot rest in a state of perpetual doubt. There was 
this one system elaborated by Ptolemy. There was no other except that 
given in the prophecies of Daniel. Hence, whilst the Ptolemaic astronomy 
was overthrown by Copernicus in the 16th Century, the reign of the Ptolemaic 
Chronology remains to this day. There is one, and only one alternative. The 
prophecy of Daniel 9 2 4- 2 7 fixes the period between the going forth of the 
commandment to return and to build Jerusalem (in the first year of Cyrus) 
to the cutting off of the Messiah (in the year a.d. 30) as a period of 483 years. 
If this be the true Chronology of the period from the ist year of Cyrus 
to the Crucifixion, it leaves only 123 years instead of the 205 given in 
Ptolemy's Canon, for the duration of the Persian Empire. 

Daniel. Ptolemy. 

Persian Empire (Cyrus to Alexander the Great) 123 years 205 years 
Greek Empire (Alexander the Great to a.d. 1) 331 ,, 331 

454 » 536 „ 
a.d. i to the Crucifixion, a.d. 30 . . 29 29 

483 » 565 >> 

a difference of 82 years. 

Consequently the received or Ptolemaic Chronology, now universally 
accepted, must be abridged by these 82 years. The error of Ptolemy has 
probably been made through his having assigned too many years, and perhaps 
too many Kings, to the latter part of the period of the Persian Empire, in 
the scheme which he made out from various conflicting data. 

We have to choose between the Heathen Astrologer and the Hebrew 
Prophet. 

Other interpretations have been given of the date of " the going forth 
of the commandment to return and to build Jerusalem " (Dan. 9 20 ). 

Bishop Lloyd, the author of the Bible Dates in the margin of the Authorized 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 21 



Version, reckons the 483 years from the leave given to Nehemiah to rebuild 
the walls of Jerusalem in the 20th year of Artaxerxes, whom he identifies 
with Artaxerxes Longimanus (Neh. 2 1 ), and to make the fulfilment fit the 
prophecy on the erroneous Ptolemaic reckoning of the Chronology he has 
to curtail the interval by reckoning in years of 360 days each. 

Dr. Prideaux reckons the 483 years from the date of Ezra's return in the 
7th year of Artaxerxes (Longimanus), Ezra 7 1 " 28 . 

Scaliger reckoned the 70 weeks of Daniel as commencing in the 4th year 
of Darius Nothus, B.C. 420, and ending at the destruction of Jerusalem, 
a.d. 70. 

Others have reckoned the 483 years from the going forth of the command- 
ment in the 2nd year of Darius Hystaspes (b.c. 519) to build the Temple 
(Ezra 4 24 , 5 1 — 6 15 ). 

But the true point of departure for the 70 weeks, and therefore for the 
483 years also, is unquestionably the 1st year of Cyrus (Dan. 9, 2 Chron. 
36 20-23 , Ezra i 1 " 4 , Isa. 44 2 8 , 45 l_4,13 ), and no other epoch would ever 
have been suggested but for the fact that the count of the years was lost, 
and wrongly restored from Ptolemy's conjectural astronomical calculations. 

It would be far better to abandon the Ptolemaic Chronology and fit the 
events into the 483 years of the Hebrew prophecy. 

The one great fundamental fact to be remembered is the fact that modern 
Chronology rests upon the calculations of Ptolemy as published in his Canon 
or List of Reigns. And since the foundation of Greek Conjectural Com- 
putation Chronology, upon which Ptolemy's Canon rests, is unstable, the 
superstructure is likewise insecure. Ptolemy may be called as a witness. 
He cannot be allowed to arbitrate as a Judge. He cannot take the place 
of a Court of Final Appeal. He cannot be erected into a standard by which 
to correct the Chronology of the text of the Old Testament. 

5. The Books of the Old Testament Apocrypha are useful as showing the 
interpretation put upon the books of the Old Testament in later times, but 
they are not authoritative. The 1st Book of Esdras is useful as showing 
how the writer interpreted the narrative of Ezra. Sir Isaac Newton says 
" I take the Book of Esdras to be the best interpreter of the Book of Ezra." 
The view which makes the succession of the Kings of Persia mentioned after 
Cyrus in Ezra 4, (1) Darius Hystaspes, (2) Ahasuerus ( — Xerxes), 
(3) Artaxerxes (= Longimanus) is the view now held by many modern 
Biblical scholars. 

In Esdras 3 1 " 2 , 2 30 , cp. Ezra 4 s , the Ahasuerus of Esther is identified 
with Darius Hystaspes. This identification is adopted by Archbishop Ussher 
and by Bishop Lloyd (Esther 1 1 A.V. Margin), the date there given (b.c. 521) 
being that of the accession of Darius Hystaspes. See Ussher's Annals, sub anno 
mundi 3484. Ussher identifies the Ahasuerus of Esther with the Artaxerxes 
of Ezra 7 1 — Neh. 13 6 , and also with Darius Hystaspes, Ezra 6 14 (translate 
Darius even Artaxerxes). There is every reason to believe that this double 
identification is correct. 

The 2nd Book of Esdras is of no value for chronological purposes. In 
the book of Tobit, Cyaxeres the Mede, who with Nebuchadnezzar's father 



22 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



(also called Nebuchodonossor) took Nineveh, is identified with Ahasuerus, 
In Bel and the Dragon, Darius the Mede, the predecessor of Cyrus, is identified 
with Astyages. 

There is great confusion between the use of the names Cyaxeres and 
Astyages. As Sir Isaac Newton says : " Herodotus hath inverted the order 
of the Kings Astyages and Cyaxeres, making Cyaxeres to be the son and 
successor of Phraortes, and the father and predecessor of Astyages, whereas 
according to Xenophon the order of succession of the Kings of Media is (i) 
Phraortes, (2) Astyages, (3) Cyaxeres, (4) Darius the Mede, after which comes 
(5) Cyrus the Great, the founder of the Persian Empire." The testimony 
of these various authorities is perplexing and confusing. They must all 
be called as witnesses, but in no case can they be looked upon as authorities 
to be accepted in preference to the text of the Old Testament. 

6. Flavins Josephus (a.d. 37-103), the famous historian of the Jews, 
was a cultured Jew, a Pharisee, and a man of good family. He went to Rome, 
a.d. 63, and when the Jewish war broke out he led the Jews of Galilee against 
the Romans. Eventually he surrendered. His life was spared, but he was * 
put in chains for three years. He gained the favour of Vespasian, and later 
on that of Titus, to whom he urged his countrymen to surrender. After 
the fall of Jerusalem he lived as a Roman pensioner till his death, a.d. 103. 
His three great standard works are (1) The Antiquities of the Jews (published 
a.d. 93), a history of the Jewish people from the Creation to the time of Nero, 
without exception the most valuable record of ancient history next to that of 
the Old Testament, on which it is almost entirely dependent as far as the 
history related in the Old Testament goes. (2) The Wars of the Jews (pub- 
lished a.d. 75), the story of the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, a.d. 70. 
(3) Contra Apion (written a.d. 93), an appendix to his Antiquities, and a 
defence of his statements in that work respecting the very great antiquity 
of the Jewish nation. 

These three great works contain most valuable chronological materials, 
but the figures given are not reliable. They are not always self-consistent, 
in some cases they have been carelessly copied, and in others they have been 
" corrected " by his Hellenistic editors in order to bring them into accord 
with those of the LXX. Apart from this it must be admitted that Chronology 
was not a strong point with Josephus, and Chronology being but a secondary 
object with him, he was not always over careful in his calculations. His 
original figure for the years from Adam to the Flood was probably 1656, 
the same as in the Hebrew Text, but his Hellenistic editors have (1) " cor- 
rected " his ages of the Patriarchs, making the six centenary additions in 
accordance with the figures of the LXX, and then (2) * k corrected " the total 
by turning the one thousand of the number 1656 into a figure 2, thus making 
it 2656, whereas the correct addition of the figures as altered would be 2256. 
For the period from Shem to Terah's 70th year the number given is 292 
years, the same as the Hebrew Text, but the numbers assigned to the 
Patriarchs have again been " corrected " by his editors by means of the 
centenary additions of the LXX, and consequently when totalled up they 
amount to 993 instead of 292. The consequence is that the Chronology of 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



23 



Josephus in its present state is a mass of confusion. Nevertheless, his history 
is that of a historian of the first rank, and since his account of the closing 
years of the Persian Empire agrees with that of the National Persian Traditions 
incorporated in the poem of Firdusi, and with that of the National Jewish 
Traditions preserved in the Sedar Olam, he stands as a witness against the 
longer Persian Chronology of Ptolemy, now universally accepted, and for 
the shorter Chronology of the Prophet Daniel. 

Josephus' account of the monarchs of the Persian Empire is as follows : — • 

1. Cyrus. 

2. Cambyses = Artaxerxes of Ezra 4 7-23 . 

3. Darius Hystaspes. 2nd year, Temple foundation laid. 

9th year, Temple finished. 

4. Xerxes = Artaxerxes of Ezra 7 1 -8 36 . 

25th year, Nehemiah came to Jerusalem. 
28th year, Walls of Jerusalem finished. 

5. Cyrus (son of Xerxes), called by the Greeks Artaxerxes, and identified 

with the Ahasuerus of Esther. 

6. Darius the last King, a contemporary of Jaddua and Alexander the 

Great. 

Altogether Josephus gives only six monarchs instead of Ptolemy's ten, 
of which six monarchs the last is contemporary with Jaddua, the son of 
Johannan, the son of Joiada. So that Jaddua was contemporary with 
Alexander the Great, and Jaddua's father (or his uncle), the son of Joiada, 
was contemporary with Nehemiah, who chased him (Neh. 13 28 ). Conse- 
quently from Nehemiah and the son of Joiada, whom he chased, to Alexander 
the Great, is only one generation. But Ptolemy makes it 100 years, or, if 
the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah is correctly identified with Darius Hystaspes, 
150 years. 

We may reject the Chronology of Josephus, but his succession of the High 
Priests, and the Kings of Persia is good evidence against the list given by 
Ptolemy, and in favour of the shorter Chronology of the prophet Daniel, 
and the Book of Nehemiah. 

7. The Sedar Olam Kabbah, i.e., "The Large Chronicle of the World," com- 
monly called the " Larger Chronicon," is a Jewish Talmudic Tract, containing 
the Chronology of the world as reckoned by the Jews. It treats of Scripture 
times, and is continued down to the reign of Hadrian (a.d. 76-138). The 
author is said to have been Rabbi Jose ben Chaliptha, who nourished a little 
after the beginning of the 2nd Century after Christ, and was Master to Rabbi 
Judah Hakkodesh, who composed the Mishna. Others say it dates from 
a.d. 832, and that it was certainly written after the Babylonian Talmud, 
as it contains many fables taken from thence. 

The Sedar Olam Zeutah, i.e., " Small Chronicle of the World," commonly 
called the "Lesser Chronicle," is said to have been written a.d. 1123. It 
is a short chronicle of the events of history from the beginning of the world 
to the year a.d. 522. 

Both contain the Jewish tradition respecting the duration of the Persian 



24 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



Empire. This tradition is " that in the last year of Darius Hystaspes, the 
prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi died, that thereon the spirit of 
prophecy ceased from among the Children of Israel, and that this was the 
obsignation or sealing up of vision and prophecy spoken of by the prophet 
Daniel (Dan. 9 24 ). The same tradition tells us that the Kingdom of the 
Persians ceased also the same year, for they will have it that this was the 
Darius whom Alexander the Great conquered, and that the whole continuance 
of the Persian Empire was only 52 years, which they reckon thus : — 

Darius the Median reigned . . . . . . . . . . 1 year 

Cyrus . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . 3 years 

Cambyses (whom they identify with the Ahasuerus who 

married Esther) . . . . . . . . . . 16 ,, 

Darius (whom they will have to be the son of Esther) 32 ,, 

Total 52 „ 

This last Darius, they say, w, s the Artaxerxes who sent Ezra and Nehemiah 
to Jerusalem to restore the state of the Jews, for they tell us that Artaxerxes 
among the Persians was the common name for their Kings, as that of Pharoah 
was among the Egyptians." 

Now we may say with Dr. Prideaux in his Historical Connection of the 
Old and New Testaments, published in 1858, from which the above extract is 
taken, that " this shows how ill they have been acquainted with the affairs 
of the Persian Empire," and that " their countryman, Josephus, in the account 
which he gives of those times, seems to have been but very little better informed 
concerning them," or, we may draw the contrary conclusion, that Josephus 
knew the history of his own country better than Ptolemy. 

How long did the Persian Empire last ? We may ask the Persians them- 
selves, and if we do they will tell us that they have no records of the period, 
these having been all swept away by the Greek and Mohammedan Invasions. 
But they have certain vague, floating, national traditions, cast into an epic poem 
by Firdusi, and from these we learn that the succession of the Persian Monarchs 
was as follows : (1) Darius Hystaspes, (2) Artaxerxes Longimanus, (3) Queen 
Homai the mother of Darius Nothus, (4) Darius Nothus the bastard son of 
Artaxerxes Longimanus, and (5) Darius, who was conquered by Alexander 
the Great. All the Kings between these two Dariuses they omit. 

Or again we may ask the Jews, and if we do they will tell us that the 
Persian Empire lasted only 52 years, from the first of Cyrus to the first of 
Alexander the Great. We may go to Ptolemy, and if we do he will determine 
the length of the period and make out a list of kings for us by means of 
astronomical calculations and conjectural identifications of recorded with 
calculated eclipses, and then we shall get a Persian Empire lasting 205 years. 
But if we take the account given in Nehemiah, and the years specified by 
the prophet Daniel, we shall find that the Persian Empire continued for a 
period of 123 years. 

The Jews shortened it to 52 years. " Some of them," says Sir Isaac 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



25 



Newton, " took Herod for the Messiah, and were thence called Herodians. 
They seem to have grounded their opinion on the 70 weeks, which they 
reckoned from the first year of Cyrus. But afterwards, in applying the 
prophecy to Theudas and Judas of Galilee, and at length to Bar Cochab, 
they seem to have shortened the reign of the Kingdom of Persia." This 
explains why the Jews underestimated the duration of the Persian Empire, 
and it shows that originally they reckoned about 123 years. Now, 

From 1st year Cyrus, to 1st year Alexander the Great = 123 years 
From 1st year Alexander the Great to Herod (b.c. 

331-4) = 337 » 

From 1st year Cyrus, to the birth of Christ . . . . = 450 ,, 

If, then, the wise men from the East had heard of Daniel's prophecy, and 
had kept an accurate account of the years, and if the Jews of Palestine were 
also expecting the Messiah at the very time when He was born (b.c. 4) on 
the ground that it was then within 33 years of the 483 predicted in Daniel 
for His appearance, and therefore now time for Him to be born, this would 
indicate that they reckoned the time between the 1st year of Cyrus and the 
birth of Christ as a period of 450 years. And since the 327 years (B.C. 331 
to B.C. 4) from Alexander the Great to the birth of Christ were in all probability 
accurately computed by the Greeks, for they began their reckoning by 
Olympiads within 60 years of Alexander's death, it leaves exactly these 
123 years for the duration of the Persian Empire, and abridges the accepted 
Ptolemaic Chronology by 82 years, for 205—123 = 82, which is the exact 
year expressed for these events in the Chronology of the Old Testament, as 
developed in these pages, for Cyrus' 1st year is shown to be the year an. hom. 
3589, whence 3589 + 483 = 4071 (inclusive reckoning), for the Crucifixion, and 
as Christ was about 30 years of age when He began His ministry, and His 
ministry lasted three years, He was born an. hom. 4038, or exactly 450 years 
after the 1st year of Cyrus, Christ having been born four years before the 
commencement of the Christian Era. But 450 years before the actual date 
of the birth of Christ is B.C. 454. The true date of the 1st year of Cyrus is 
therefore B.C. 454, not B.C. 536, which makes the Chronology of this period 
82 years too long. 

It may be objected that in the Battle of Marathon, which was fought 
B.c. 490, Darius Hystaspes was defeated by the Greeks, and that the Greek 
Chronology, which was reckoned by Olympiads from B.C. 776 onward, cannot 
be at fault to the extent of 82 years. But that is just the very point in dispute. 
The Greeks did not make a single calculation in Olympiads, nor had they 
any accurate chronological records till sixty years after the death of Alexander 
the Great. All that goes before that is guess work, and computation by 
generations, and other contrivances, not the testimony of contemporary 
records. 

The Sedar Olam, therefore, may be called as a witness, and it is not to be 
ruled out of court by any objections raised by the Greeks, but it must be 
called as a witness only, not as arbitrator or Judge. 



26 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



(3) Ancient Monumental Inscriptions. 

Ancient Monumental Inscriptions upon rocks, temples, palaces, cylinders,, 
bricks, steles, and tablets, and writings upon papyrus rolls, brought to light 
by modern discovery in recent times, constitute one of the most valuable 
sources affording data, not for the correction of Biblical data, but for the 
construction of a Chronology of their own, for the period covered by the 
writings of the Old Testament. The witnesses are exceedingly numerous,, 
and when they are rightly interpreted, they may be regarded as authentic, 
though of course errors may be graven upon the rock, or written upon ancient 
papyrus rolls, quite as readily as upon Hebrew manuscripts. In no case 
can it be allowed that recent discoveries either have made, or can make good 
a claim to the infallibility which modern scholarship denies to Pope and 
Bible alike. The Monuments themselves may, and do, sometimes err. They 
may, and sometimes they do, chronicle the lying vanities of ambitious tyrants. 
They may be incorrectly deciphered, incorrectly interpreted, or incorrectly 
construed, in relation to other events. 

It is a matter of fundamental importance, and it cannot be too emphatically 
pointed out, that the interpretation at present put upon the Chronology of 
the monuments is predetermined by the assumption on the part of the inter- 
preter of the validity of the accepted Ptolemaic Chronology. 

Should it be proved that that Chronology is overstated by 82 years, the 
monuments would bear exactly the same witness to the truth of the revised 
Chronology as they now bear to the truth of the Ptolemaic dates. The 
Ptolemaic Chronology is assumed by the interpreter of the testimony of the 
Monuments as one of his premises. It is therefore bound to come out in 
his conclusion, but it is not thereby proved to be true. 

An illustration will make the matter clear. The Sayce-Cowley Aramaic 
Papyri discovered at Assuan in 1904, and published in 1906 by Robert Mond, 
are dated quite confidently and quite absolutely from 471 or 470 to 411. 
Papyrus A bears date " the 14th (15 ?) year of Xerxes." This is interpreted, 
as meaning, and is quite definitely declared to be, the year B.C. 471 or 470. 
Now in Ptolemy's Canon the date of Xerxes is given as the equivalent of 
B.C. 485. His 14th year will therefore be B.C. 471, and his 15th B.C. 470. 

Again in the Drei Aramaische Papyrus Urkunden aus Elephantine (Three 
Aramaic Papyrus Documents from Elephantine), published by Prof. Sachau, 
of Berlin, in 1907, the date given in the original is " the month of Marcheschwan 
in the 17th year of Darius." This is interpreted as referring to Darius 
Nothus, whose date is given in Ptolemy's Canon (allowing for the fact that 
Ptolemy's year is one of 365 days only) as B.C. 424. His 17th year will 
therefore be 408 or possibly 407. With this interpretation, derived solely 
from Ptolemy's Canon, the document is forthwith dated B.C. 408-407. 

In both cases the interpreters have assumed that the Chronology of 
Ptolemy's Canon is the truth, and they are ready, without more ado, to 
interpret or to correct the dates given in Nehemiah in the light of these " modern 
discoveries." For Prof. Sachau proceeds at once to draw chronological 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



27 



inferences from the fact that " Delajah and Schelemjah, the sons of Sanaballat,. 
the Pekah of Samaria " are mentioned in lines 29, 30, and, in his comment 
on these lines, he exclaims, " Have then the Jews of Elephantine obtained no 
knowledge whatever of Nehemiah and his great national work ? Or had so 
much grass grown over the contention with Sanballat since the return of 
Nehemiah to Babylon somewhere about the year B.C. 433, that the Jewish 
community at Elephantine believed themselves able to disregard these 
things ? " 

The assumption of the truth of Ptolemy's Canon is of course perfectly 
legitimate, so long as it is remembered that it is an assumption, and not a 
conclusion. But if any attempt is made to fix the date of Nehemiah from 
references to the sons of Sanballat in the Sachau documents, the argument 
is invalid. It moves in a circle. It first assumes the truth of the Ptolemaic, 
Chronology, and then uses a deduction from that assumption to prove the 
truth of it. It is correcting the Hebrew Text of Nehemiah by Ptolemy 
using the testimony of one witness (Ptolemy) to adjudicate against the testi- 
mony of the other (the Hebrew Text of Nehemiah), when the whole point 
at issue is which of these two witnesses is to be believed. It is not therefore 
correct to say that the date of Nehemiah is fixed by these modern discoveries 
at Assuan, apart altogether from the question raised by Prof. Margoliouth 
as to whether they may not be forgeries. All the facts contained in the 
Assuan documents can be fitted into the revised Chronology necessitated 
by the Hebrew Text, as easily as, if not indeed more easily than, they have 
been fitted into the received Chronology of Ptolemy. It is of primary 
importance to remember that the whole point in dispute is as to the truth 
of one or the other of two conflicting witnesses, the Hebrew Old Testament 
and Ptolemy. It is absurd to attempt to adjudicate upon the matter by 
first assuming the truth of one witness, and then on the basis of that assumption 
pronouncing judgment against the other. 

Similarly the dates assigned by modern scholars to the Monuments of 
Egypt go back far beyond the year of the creation of Adam as fixed by the 
Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, 4038 years before the actual birth of 
Christ, i.e., in the year B.C. 4042. These Monumental dates rest upon a 
basis of hypothesis and conjecture, and involve the assumption of the truth 
of the testimony of the witness Manetho. But since one witness cannot 
be used to correct another, Manetho and the dates derived from the assumption 
of the truth of his testimony cannot be used to prove the incorrectness of 
the chronological statements of the Old Testament. 

All sources must be used, and all witnesses must be heard, but it must 
be remembered that the witness of the Old Testament is not confuted by 
an interpretation of the testimony of Monumental Inscriptions which depends 
for its validity on the truth of the conflicting testimony of Manetho. 

Moreover the whole trend of the results of recent discovery in the realm 
of Biblical Archaeology has been toward the establishment of the Text of 
the Old Testament as an unimpeachable witness to the truth. The Stele 
of Khammurabi, the Tel-El- Amarna Tablets, the Moabite Stone, the Behistun 
Inscription, Babylonian and Assyrian and Egyptian Monumental Records. 



28 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



The Assyrian Eponym Canon, the discoveries of Layard, George Smith, and 
Sir H. Rawlinson, and all the more recent discoveries of our own time, when 
rightly interpreted, point in the same direction. 

(4) Classic Literature of Greece and Rome. 

The Classic Literature of Greece and Rome is the prime source of our 
information respecting the Chronology of the civilized world. 

Of the principal Greek and Roman Historians, who may be regarded as 
authentic witnesses to the facts of contemporary history, as distinguished 
from mere Chronologers or Compilers of dates, whose writings stand on an 
entirely different footing, the following are worthy of special mention : — 

I. Greek Historians. 

1. Herodotus, the "Father of History" (b.c. 484-424), born at Halicar- 

nassus, author of the world-famous " history " of the Persian 
War of Invasion from the first expedition of Mardonius, son-in- 
law and General of Darius Hystaspes, to the discomfiture of 
the vast fleet and army of Xerxes. Translated by George 
Rawlinson. 

2. Thucydides (b.c. 471-401 or 396), author of the History of the 

Peloponnesian War, one of the greatest monuments of antiquity. 
Translated by Benjamin Jowett. 

3. Xenophon (b.c. 430-c. 357), the essayist, historian, and military 

leader who was appointed General of the 10,000 Greeks, who 
joined the expedition of the Persian Prince Cyrus the younger 
against his brother Artaxerxes Mnemon, and were defeated at 
Cunaxa (B.C. 401). Xenophon was the author of (1) the Anabasis, 
an account of this expedition, (2) the Cyropczdia, a historical 
romance of the education and training of Cyrus the Great, (3) the 
Hellenica, a history of contemporary events in Greece, and (4) the 
Memorabilia or Reminiscences of Socrates. 

4. Polybius (b.c. 204-122), one of the 1,000 hostages carried off by 

the Romans after the Conquest of Macedonia, B.C. 168. He 
became acquainted with Scipio Africanus, and wrote a history 
of Greece and Rome for the period (b.c. 220-146). 

5. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (b.c. 70-6), essayist, critic and historian. 

He lived at Rome for 20 years (b.c. 30-10), where he amassed 
materials for his Romaike Archaiologia, a history of Rome from 
the early times down to the first Punic War. 

6. Strabo (b.c. 63-A.D. 21), the world-famous geographer, born at Amasia 

in Pontus, Asia Minor. He was educated at Rome. He 
travelled from Armenia to Etruria, and from the shores of the 
Euxine to the borders of Ethiopia. The fourth book of his 
celebrated Geography is devoted to Gaul, Britain and Ireland. 
He also wrote Historical Memoirs and a Continuation of Polybius, 
but these are both lost. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



29 



7 Diodorus Siculus (fl. a.d. 8), a native of Sicily. Hence his name 
Siculus. A historian of the time of Julius Caesar and Augustus. 
He travelled widely in Asia and Europe, and devoted 30 years 
to the writing of a Universal History of the World down to 
Caesar's Gallic Wars. Only 15 of his 40 books, with some 
fragments, have survived. 

8. Plutarch (a.d. 50-120), the most attractive and the most widely 

read of all the Greek writers. He lectured at Rome during the 
reign of Domitian. His famous Parallel Lives of Greek and 
Roman Writers, 46 in all, are universally known and admired. 
His essays and his biographies breathe a fine moral tone. They 
inspired some of Shakespeare's greatest plays, and much of the 
noblest literature of modern times. 

9. Arrian (2nd Century a.d.), served in the Roman army under Hadrian, 

and was Prefect of Cappadocia, a.d. 135. He sat at the feet of 
Epictetus, and composed a treatise on moral philosophy. His 
most important works are (1) his History of Alexander the Great, 
(2) an account of India, and (3) a description of the coasts of the 
Euxine. He also wrote on military subjects and on the chase. 

10. Lucian (a.d. 120-200), a humorous writer, born at Samosata on the 

Euphrates, in Syria. He practised as an advocate at Antioch, 
travelled through Greece, Italy and Gaul, and was appointed 
Procurator of part of Greece. He ridicules the religion and 
the philosophy of the age, and gives a graphic account of con- 
temporary social life. He wrote the Dialogues of the Gods, the 
Sale of Philosophers, Timon, and other works. His famous 
Dialogues of the Dead are intended to show the emptiness of 
all that seems most precious to mankind, 

11. Dion Cassius (b. a.d. 155), the "last of the old historians" who 

knew the laws of historic writing. He was born at Nicea, and 
was the son of a Roman Senator, but his mother was a Greek. 
Dion Cassius himself became a Roman Senator, and was appointed 
Governor of Pergamos and Smyrna. He composed a history 
of Rome from the time of Aeneas to his own day. 

12. Appian (2nd Century a.d.), a Greek of Alexandria. He wrote in 

Greek a valuable history of Rome. He was contemporary with 
Trajan, Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. He deals with the history 
of each of the nations that was conquered by Rome, and of 
the civil war which preceded the downfall of the Republic. He 
preserves the statements of earlier authors whose works are now 
lost. 

II. Roman Historians. 

1. Cicero (b.c. 106-43), orator, statesman, philosopher, and man of 
letters. He was Consul, B.C. 63. He foiled the Catiline con- 
spiracy. He was exiled and recalled. He supported Pompey 
against Caesar. After the overthrow of Pompey, Caesar received 



.30 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



him as a friend. He then lived in literary retirement and wrote 
his great works. After Caesar's death he delivered his philippics 
against Antony, and was proscribed and put to death by Antony's 
soldiers. His De Amicitia, De Officiis, and De Senectute awaken 
thought and form pleasant reading. 

2. Julius Ccesar (b.c. 100-44), general, triumvir, dictator, and man of 

letters. In nine years (B.C. 58-49) he proved his great military 
genius by subduing Gaul, Germany, Britain, and most of Western 
Europe to the Roman yoke. In B.C. 55 and again in B.C. 52 he 
invaded Britain, from which he retired, virtually discomfited. 
Caesar espoused the cause of Democracy, Pompey that of 
Aristocracy. In January, B.C. 49, Caesar crossed the Rubicon. 
He drove Pompey out of Italy, and in B.C. 48 he defeated him 
at Pharsalia, and was appointed dictator. Coins were struck 
bearing his effigy, and the title Imperator was made a permanent 
addition to his name. With the assistance of the Greek 
Astronomer Sosigenes, he reformed the Calendar, and introduced 
the Julian year, which began on January 1st (a.u.c. 709 = B.C. 45), 
the first year of the Julian Era. The Julian year consisted of 
exactly 365J days ; the first three years contained 365 days, 
and another day, making 366, was added for every fourth year. 
The Julian year remained in use till December 22nd, 1582, when 
the year was again reformed by Pope Gregory XIII, assisted 
by the mathematician Clavius, and for the Roman World that 
day became January 1st, 1583. The Gregorian year was not 
introduced into England till September 3rd, 1752, which day 
became September 14th by Act of Parliament. The Gregorian 
year drops the additional leap year day every century (a.d. 1700, 
1800, 1900, etc.), except when it is divisible by four (a.d. 2000). 
Julius Caesar was about to embark on a great career of states- 
manlike economic and political reorganization when he was 
assassinated by Brutus on the Ides of March, a.u.c. 710 = B.C. 44. 

3. Sallust (b.c. 86-34), a member of the Roman Senate. Expelled 

for immorality. An adherent of Julius Caesar. Appointed 
Governor of Numidia. He wrote the history of the Catiline 
Conspiracy, and the War with Jugurlha. 

4. Livy (b.c. 59-A.D. 17), lived at Rome at the Court of his patron and 

friend Augustus. He wrote 142 books of Annates, a history of 
Rome, of which, however, only 35 remain. 

5. Cornelius Nepos (1st Century B.C.), a native of Verona, and a friend 

of Cicero. He wrote De Viris Illustribus. Only a fragment of 
it remains, and the authorship of this is disputed. 

6. Tacitus (a.d. 54-117), an eminent Roman historian. Appointed 

quaestor, tribune, praetor, and consul siifjcctus. His De Situ 
Moribus et Populis Germaniae is our earliest source of information 
respecting the Teutons. His Historiae, covering the period 
A.d. 68-96, and his Annates covering the period a.d. 14-68, aie 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



31 



historic works of first rate importance. They give a terrible 
picture of the decay of imperial Rome. 
7. Suetonius (born c. a.d. 70), a Roman advocate, and private secretary 
to the Emperor Hadrian. His Lives of the Twelve Ccesars is 
valuable for its anecdotes, which illustrate the character of the 
Emperors. 

It is through the Greeks that we have received our knowledge of the history 
of the great Empires and civilizations of the East. Even Sanchoniathon 
and Berosus and Manet ho, have all come to us through the Greeks. It was 
the Greeks who created the framework of the Chronology of the civilized 
ages of the past, and fitted into it all the facts of history, which have reached 
us through them. Apart from the Bible, the vague floating national traditions 
of the Persians and the later Jews, and the direct results of modern exploration, 
all our chronological knowledge reaches us through Greek spectacles. Here 
as everywhere else it is " thy sons O Zion against thy sons, O Greece " (Zech. 
9 13 ). It is Nehemiah and Daniel against Ptolemy and Eratosthenes. It 
is Hebraic Chronology against Hellenic Chronology. And here the Greek 
has stolen a march upon the Hebrew, for he has stolen his Old Testament and 
forced his own Greek Chronology into the Hebrew record, Hellenizing the 
ages of the Hebrew Patriarchs in the Greek LXX. 

Are we then to accept the testimony of the Greek as correcting or anti- 
quating the testimony of the Hebrew ? By no means. Let the Greek be 
heard as a witness, but let him not presume to pronounce sentence as a Judge. 
Clinton's Fasti Hellenici is perhaps the most valuable treatise on Chronology 
ever produced. But it is not infallible. Clinton's standard is Ptolemy's 
Canon ; Sayce's standard is the Monuments. But neither of these sources 
is competent to correct the Hebrew Old Testament, which must be placed 
in the witness-box alongside of them, not in the dock, to be sentenced by 
them. 

To begin at the beginning, the point of departure for Greek Chronology, 
the 1st Olympiad, B.C. 776, upon which everything else depends, rests upon 
no firmer foundation than that of tradition and computation by conjecture. 

The opening sentence of Clinton's Tables reveals the basis upon which 
lie builds. He says : " The first Olympiad is placed by Censorinus in the 
1014th year before the Consulship of Ulpius and Pontianus, a.d. 238 = 
B.C. 776. Solinus attests that the 207th Olympiad fell within the Consulship 
of Gallus and Verannius. These were Consuls a.d. 49, and if the 207th 
Games were celebrated in July, a.d. 49, 206 Olympiaas, or 824 years had 
elapsed, and the first games were celebrated in July 776." 

But Censorinus wrote his De Die Natali, a.d. 238, and Solinus also belongs 
to the 3rd Century a.d. They are not, therefore, contemporary witnesses, 
and we do not know how far their computations were derived from hypothesis 
and conjecture, or how far they rest upon a basis of objective fact. Never- 
theless, this point has been made the first link in the chain of the centuries, 
a chain flung out to float in the air, or attached, not to the solid staple of 
fixed fact, but only to the rotten ring of computation and conjecture. The 
Canon of Ptolemy rests upon this calculation. Eusebius (a.d. 264-349) 



32 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



adopted it, and set the example of making Scripture dates fit into the years 
of the Greek Era. Eusebius is based upon Manetho (3rd Century B.C.), 
Berosus (3rd Century B.C.), Abydenus (2nd Century B.C.), Polyhistor (1st 
Century B.C.), Josephus (a.d. 37-103), Cephalion (1st. Century A.D.), 
Africanus (3rd Century B.C.), and other sources now lost. Eusebius' Chronology 
was contained in his u Chronicon." This was translated by Jerome, and 
has been followed by all subsequent writers down to the present day. 

The one infallible connecting link between sacred and profane Chronology 
is given in Jeremiah 25 \ Cl The fourth year of Jehoiakim, which was the 
first year of Nebuchadnezzar." If the events of history had been numbered 
forward from this point to the birth of Christ, or back from Christ to it, we 
should have had a perfectly complete and satisfactory Chronology. But 
they were not. The distance between the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar and 
the birth of Christ was not known. It has been fixed by conjecture, with 
the assistance of Ptolemy. Clinton fixes it at B.C. 606, Sayce at B.C. 604, 
and from this date, thus fixed, Chronologers reckon back to Adam and on to 
Christ. The distance between the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar and the birth 
of Christ has not been measured by the annals or chronicles of any well- 
attested dated events. It was originally fixed by Ptolemy, by means of 
computation and conjecture, and recorded events have been fitted into the 
interval by computing Chronologers as far as the fictitious framework would 
allow. 

The opening sentence of Sir Isaac Newton's Introduction to his Short 
Chronicle from the first memory of things in Europe to the Conquest of Persia 
by Alexander the Great, shows how entirely fluid and indeterminate were 
those first years of Grecian history. 

" The Greek Antiquities," says Newton, " are full of poetic fictions, because 
the Greeks wrote nothing in prose before the conquest of Asia by Cyrus the 
Persian." 

The uncertainty as to the epoch of the foundation of Rome and the Era 
which dates from that event, is just as great as the uncertainty as to the 
beginnings of the history of Greece. The following is a list of the dates that 
have been sanctioned by various writers : — 

B.C. 

Varro, Tacitus, Plutarch, Dion, Aulus Gellius, Censorinus, etc. 753 
Cato, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Solinus, Eusebius, etc. . . 752 
Livy, Cicero, Pliny and Velleius Paterculus . . . . 753 or 752 

Polybius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 751 

Fabius Pictor and Diodorus Siculus . . . . . . . . 747 

L. Cincius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 728 

A margin of 25 years. 

These uncertainties in Greek and Roman Chronology, and the late and 
purely conjectural character of the foundation upon which they rest, show 
how impossible it is for us to erect the Chronology of the classic literature 
of Greece and Rome into a standard by which to correct the Chronology of 
the Hebrew Old Testament. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 33 

Nearly all the great Empires of the East seem to have thrown the origin 
of their dated history back into the 8th Century. 

B.C. 

Babylon (Nabonassarean Era) . . . . . . . . . . 747 

Greece (1st Olympiad) . . . . . . . . . . . . 776 

Rome (Foundation of the City) . . . . . . . . . . 753 

Lydia 716 

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 781 

Media 711 

It may be of interest to add the following remarks respecting the origin 
of the Vulgar Christian Era : — 

It was not until the year a.d. 532 that the Christian Era was invented 
by Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian by birth, and a Roman Abbot. He 
nourished in the reign of Justinian (a.d. 527-565). He was unwilling to connect 
his cycles of dates with the era of the impious tyrant and persecutor Diocletian, 
which began with the year a.d. 284, but chose rather to date the times of the 
years from the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ " to the end that the 
commencement of our hope might be better known to us and that the cause 
of man's restoration, namely, our Redeemer's passion, might appear with 
clearer evidence." The year following that in which Dionysius Exiguus 
wrote these words to Bishop Petronius was the year 248 of the Diocletian Era. 
Hence the new Era of the Incarnation as it was then reckoned was 284 + 248 = 
a.d. 532. Dionysius abhorred the memory of Diocletian with good reason, 
for in the 1st year of his reign, from which the Diocletian Era begins, he caused 
a number of Christians who were celebrating Holy Communion in a cave 
to be buried alive there. The Diocletian Era was, from this fact, sometimes 
called the Era of the Martyrs. 

Dionysius reckoned the year of our Lord's birth to be the year A.u.c. 753, 
according to Varro's computation, i.e., the year 45 of the Julian Era. 
Dionysius obtained this date from Luke's statements that " John the Baptist 
began his ministry in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius," and that " Jesus 
was beginning to be about 30 years of age " (Luke 3 1-2 3 ). Tiberius succeeded 
Augustus, August 19th, A.u.c. 767. Therefore his 15th year was A.u.c. 782. 
Subtract the assumed year of the Nativity, 753, and the remainder is 29 years 
complete, or 30 current. 

But according to Matthew, Christ was born before the death of Herod, 
that is, according to the computation of the Chronologers, before 749. Hence 
the year of the Incarnation, the year a.d. i, was fixed four years too late, 
and to remedy this we have to express the true date of our Lord's birth by 
saying that He was born B.C. 4. It was subsequently discovered that the 
source of the error lay, not with the Evangelists, Matthew or Luke, but in 
the fact that Tiberius began to reign as colleague or partner with Augustus 
some years before Augustus died, and that the length of his reign after 
Augustus' death was not 26 years, but 22. In this way the difficulties were 
cleared up. The Era of the Incarnation was allowed to remain and the birth 
of Christ was set down as having occurred in the year B.C. 4. 
c 



34 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 

(5) Astronomical Observations and Calculations. 

Astronomical Observations and Calculations are regarded by many 
Chronologers as the surest and most unerring data for fixing the dates of 
various events. Eclipses can be calculated both backward and forward. 
They are distinguished from each other by the time when, and the place 
where, they can be seen, the duration of the eclipse, and the quantity or 
number of digits eclipsed. They have therefore been regarded as a means 
of correcting and determining the dates of the events at which they have 
occurred, and the results thus obtained have been invested with a kind of 
quasi-infallibility. The date of our Lord's birth is fixed by means of an 
eclipse of the moon recorded by Josephus as having occurred shortly before 
Herod's death. 

Tables of eclipses have been furnished by Chronologers and Astronomers 
from B.C. 753 to a.d. 70, and a list of 44 of the most remarkable of these 
(25 eclipses of the sun, and 19 eclipses of the moon) is given in Hales' New 
Analysis of Chronology. The most celebrated of these eclipses is that known 
as the " Eclipse of Thales," from the fact that Thales foretold the year in 
which it would happen. It has been used by Chronologers to adjust the 
various Eras and the Chronologies of Assyria, Babylon, Media, Lydia, Scythia 
and Greece. But it has proved an apple of discord. Five several eclipses, 
occurring at as many different dates, have been identified by different 
astronomers as the one in question. The eclipse is described by Herodotus 
as occurring in the sixth year of the war between theMedes and the Lydians, 
on the river Halys, when during an obstinate battle the day suddenly became 
night. Both armies ceased fighting, a treaty of peace was arranged, and 
confirmed by a marriage compact. 

This " Eclipse of Thales " thus described by Herodotus has been identified 
with the following five distinct astronomically calculated eclipses of the sun : — 

(1) On July 30, B.C. 607— By Calvisius. 



(2) , 


, May 17 


„ 603— , 


, Costard, Montucla and Kennedy. 


(3) , 


, Sept. 19 


,, 6oi- — , 


, Ussher. 


(4) , 


> July 9 


» 597— > 


, Petavius, Mar sham, Bouhier and Larcher 


(5) , 


, May 28 , 


, 585-, 


, Pliny, Scaliger, Newton, Ferguson, 



Vignoles and Jackson. 



It will be seen from the above that there are many sources of error which 
must be allowed for, before attaching to the chronological result arrived at 
the infallibility which belongs to a mathematical calculation. 

There may be errors of observation on the part of the historian, errors of 
calculation on the part of the astronomer, and errors of identification on 
the part of the Chronologer, who may wrongly conclude that the dated eclipse 
calculated by the astronomer is one and the same with the eclipse described 
by the historian. The mistake of investing these astronomically determined 
chronological dates with the infallibility of a mathematical calculation, is 
that of assuming that the strength of the chain is that of its strongest link, 
instead of that of its weakest link. The astronomical calculations may be 
infallibly correct, and demonstrably accurate to the tick of the clock, but that 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



35 



only fixes the infallibility of one link in the chain, the strength and security 
of which cannot be transferred to the other links, or to the result as a whole. 
We cannot, therefore, obtain from Astronomical Observations and Calculations 
the material we need to enable us to use them as a standard by which to 
test the truth of the Chronological Statements of the Old Testament. Like 
the testimony of the Monuments, and all the other witnesses, the testimony 
of Astronomy must be heard and adjudged upon ; it must not presume to 
adjudge upon the testimony of other witnesses. 

(6) Ancient and Modern Chronologers. 

The works of ancient and modern Chronologers are of great help in 
enabling us to correlate the testimony derived from all the various sources 
from which evidence can be secured. 

But Chronologers are not infallible ; sometimes they arrive at differing 
and contradictory conclusions, sometimes they follow each other like a flock of 
sheep, each adopting the conclusions reached by his predecessor ; sometimes 
they are dominated by a scheme or plan into which they endeavour to fit the 
facts, and in this endeavour the facts are sometimes distorted. The millenary 
schemes of Ussher (that prince of Chronologers), and of the early Christian 
fathers, the septenary scheme of R. G. Faussett, developed in his most excellent 
and valuable work on the Symmetry of Time, the hypothetical Chronology of 
modern Assyriologists and Egyptologists, constructed in such a way that it 
can be made to fit in with their interpretation of the testimony of the Monu- 
ments, the determination of dates by Ptolemy's method of fitting the facts 
into his scheme of calculated eclipses, are all instances of the danger of bending 
the facts in order to make them fit the theory of the constructor. The only 
safe and true method of Chronology is to take into consideration the whole 
of the facts, weigh them one and all as evidence is weighed in a Court of Law, 
and to draw only such conclusions as may be warranted by the laws of evidence 
or testimony, or historic proof. 

A brief notice of the principal works of some of the more important 
Chronologers will serve as a fitting introduction to our own investigations. 
They may be classified as follows : — (i) Early Greek and Latin Chronologers, 
(2) Early Christian Chronologers, (3) Byzantine Chronologers, (4) The Great 
Armenian Chronologer, Abul-Faragus, (5) Modern Chronologers. 

I. Early Greek and Latin Chronologers, from the 5th Century B.C. to 
the Christian Era. 

1. Hellanicus (b. B.C. 496), a Greek logographer. He drew up a chrono- 
logical list of the priestesses of Juno at Argos. He constructed 
his Chronology on the principle of allowing so many years to 
each priestess, or so many priestesses to a century. 

3. Ephorus (4th Century B.C.), was a disciple of Isocrates (B.C. 436-338). 
He was the first Greek who attempted the composition of a 
universal history. He begins with the return of the Heraclidae 
into Peloponnesus (B.C. 1103) and ends with the 20th year of 
Philip of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



3. Timaeus Siculus (B.C. 260) wrote a history of Sicily, his native country* 

He was the first to use the Greek Olympiads as the basis of 
Chronology. As he wrote in the 129th Olympiad, B.C. 260, the 
preceding 128 Olympiads are not contemporary chronicles, but 
chronological computations. Timaeus instituted a comparison 
between the number of successive Ephors and Kings at Sparta, 
Archons at Athens, and Priestesses at Argos, arranging them 
into his chronological scheme of Olympiads. He brought the 
history down to his own time, and where he left off Polybius 
(B.C. 204-122) began. 

4. Eratosthenes (b. B.C. 276) has been called the " Father of Chronology,'* 

and it is worth noting that his method was the method of 
conjecture, not the method of testimony. He was a native of 
Cyrene, a man of letters under the Ptolemies of Egypt, and 
keeper of the famous library at Alexandria in the reign of 
Ptolemy IV. Euergetes (B.C. 246-221). He discovered the 
obliquity of the ecliptic, and wrote some important works on 
mathematical geography and on the constellations. He made 
the first scientific measurement of the earth, but his result was. 
one sixth too large. He made the parallel of Rhodes, in ancient 
astronomy what the meridian of Greenwich is to us. His 
Chronographia is an exact scheme of general Chronology. He 
wrote about 100 years after Alexander the Great, and arrived 
at his chronological conclusions by reckoning about 30 or 40 
years to each generation or succession of Kings, Ephors or 
Priestesses, and thus greatly exaggerated the antiquity of the 
events of Greek history. 

5. Apollodorus (2nd Century B.C.) followed the lines laid down by 

Eratosthenes. He wrote a metrical chronicle of events from 
the fall of Troy to his own day. 

6. Ptolemy, the author of Ptolemy's Canon (or Claudius Ptolemaeus 

to give him his full name), deserves a more extended notice. 
He was the originator of the Ptolemaic System of Astronomy^ 
so called because it was collected from his works. The main 
idea of this system or theory of the Universe was that the earth 
was stationary, and that all the heavenly bodies rotated round 
it in circles at a uniform rate. It was displaced by the Copernican 
system in the 16th Century. 

Ptolemy flourished in Egypt in the 2nd Century A.D., during 
the reigns of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. He was an astronomer 
and a geographer. His Geographia, a work in eight books, was 
illustrated by a map of the world, and 26 other maps. He was the 
first to attempt to reduce the study of geography to a scientific 
basis. He took Ferro in the Canaries as the westernmost part 
of the world, placed it nearly 7 0 too far east, and calculated his 
longitudes from it, whilst his latitudes were reckoned from 
Rhodes. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 37 



Ptolemy was born at Pelusium in Egypt. The date of his 
birth is generally given as a.d. 70, and he survived Antoninus 
Pius, who died a.d. 161. This would make him 91 years of age. 
But the Arabians say he died at the age of 78, in which case he 
must have been born later than a.d. 70. He recorded observa- 
tions at Alexandria between a.d. 125 and 140. The authentic 
details of the circumstances of his life are extremely few. The 
following particulars are gleaned from Ptolemy's Tebrabiblos or 
Quadripartite, being four books on the influence of the Stars, by J. M. 
Ashmand (pubd. 1822). Ptolemy was looked upon by the Greeks 
as being a man most wise and most divine on account of his 
great learning. He was a man of truly regal mind. He corrected 
Hipparchus' Catalogue of the fixed stars, and formed tables 
for the calculation and regulation of the motions of the sun. 
moon and planets. He collected the scattered and detached 
observations of Aristotle, Hipparchus, Posidonius and others 
on the economy of the world, and digested them into a system 
which he set forth in his MeyaA.77 StWafis, the Great System, 
or Great Construction, a work divided into thirteen books, and 
called after him the Ptolemaic system. All his astronomical 
works are founded on the hypothesis that the earth is at 
rest in the centre of the universe. Round the earth the 
heavenly bodies, stars and planets move in solid orbs, whose 
motions are all directed by one primum mobile, or first mover, 
of which he discourses at large in the Great System. He also 
treats in the same work of the motions of the sun, moon and 
planets, gives tables for finding their situations, latitude, longitude, 
and motions. He treats of eclipses, and the method of computing 
them. He discourses of the fixed stars, of which he furnishes a 
catalogue with their magnitudes, latitudes, and longitudes. 

Ptolemy's Order, false as it was, enabled observers to give a 
plausible account of the motions of the sun and moon, to foretell 
eclipses, and to improve geography. It represented the actual 
phenomena of the heavens, as they really appear to a spectator 
on the earth. 

In the year a.d. 827, the Great System was translated by 
the Arabians into their own language, and by them its contents 
were made known to Europe. Through them it came to be 
known as the " Al Magest " (The Great Work). In Latin it be- 
came " Magna Construct io " and in English " The Great System," 
" The Ptolemaic System," or " The Great Construction." 

Ptolemy was not so much an author as a practical astronomer. 
His Geographia is not a treatise on Geography, but an exposition 
of principles and directions lor the construction of a map. 
Ptolemy's Canon is simply a Canon or List of Kings, with the 
years of their reigns. It is not accompanied by any explanatory 
treatise. It is generally regarded as the most precious Monument 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



of ancient Chronology. In it he uses the Egyptian Vague, or 
Calendar year, of exactly 365 days. By this means, his New 
Year's Day works back, and occurs one day earlier every four 
years, and the year B.C. 521 (the Julian year of 365I days) con- 
tained the New Year's Day of two of the Egyptian Vague, or 
Calendar years of Ptolemy's Canon, one on Januar}/ 1st, and 
the other on December 31st. They are the years 227 and 228 
of Ptolemy's Nabonassarean Era. Ptolemy gives to each king 
the whole of the year in which his predecessor dies. This year 
is his first year. Cyrus died, and Cambyses began to reign in 
the year B.C. 529. But the whole of that year is given to Cambyses 
and is reckoned as his first year. In the same way Ptolemy 
took no account of the short reigns of less than a year. These 
odd months were included in the year of the preceding or the 
following king. 

Ptolemy terminates his Canon at the reign of Antoninus 
Pius, in which he lived. It was continued by Theon, his successor 
in the chair of astronomy in Alexandria, and later on by other 
writers. Ptolemy's fixed point of departure is the New Moon 
on the 1st day of the 1st month (Thoth) of the first year of the 
Era of Nabonassar. 

In view of the incomparable importance of Ptolemy's Canon 
as the basis upon which alone the determination of the date of the 
commencement of our own universally accepted Vulgar Era, 
the Common Christian Era, depends, the list is here reproduced 
entire. It is taken from the British Museum Copy of the Tables 
Chronologiques des Regnes de C. Ptolemaeus, Theon, etc., par M. 
UAbbe Halma (published in Paris, 1819). 

PTOLEMY'S CANON. 



Table of Reigns. 



Years of the 


Reigns 


BEFORE 


Alexander including his 


OWN. 




Nabonassar 


. . 14 


14 


Mesesimordae 


4 


59 


Nadius 


2 


16 


Second Interregnum . . 


8 


67 


Chinzar and Poros 


5 


21 


Asaridin 


13 


80 


Iloulaius 


5 


26 


Saosdouchin 


20 


100 


Mardocempad . . 


12 


38 


Cinilanadan 


22 


122 


Arcean 


5 


43 


Nabopollassar 


21 


143 


First Interregnum 


2 


45 


Nabocolassar 


43 


186 


Bilib 


3 


48 


Iloaroudam 


2 


188 


Aparanad 


6 


54 


Nericasolassar 


4 


192 


Rhegebel 


1 


55 


Nabonad 




209 




Persian Kings. 






Cyrus 


9 


218 


Artaxerxes II . . 


46 


3S9 


Cambyses 


8 


226 


Ochus 


21 


410 


Darius I 


36 


262 


Arogus 


2 


412 


Xerxes 


21 


283 


Darius III 


4 


416 


Artaxerxes I 


. . 41 


324 


Alexander of Macedon . . 


8 


424 


Darius II 


. . 19 


343 









THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



39 



Years of the Macedonian Kings after Alexander's Death. 



Philip 


7 


7 


Ptolemy Epiphanes 


24 


143 


Alexander II 


12 


19 


,, Philometor . . 


35 


178 


Ptolemy Lagus 


20 


39 


,, Euergetes 


29 


207 


„ Philadelphia 


38 


77 


Soter 


36 


243 


„ Euergetes 


25 


102 


Dionysius the Younger 


29 


272 


„ Philopator 


17 


119 


Cleopatra 


22 


214 




Roman Emperors. 






Augustus 


43 


337 i 


Titus 


3 


404 


Tiberius 


22 


359 


Domitian 


15 


419 


Caius 


4 


363 


Nerva 


1 


420 


Claudius 


14 


377 


Traian 


19 


439 


Nero 


14 


39i 


Adrian 


21 


460 


Vespasian 


IO 


401 


Aelius Antoninus 


23 


483 



The following is the list of Ptolemy's works : — 



1. £ H MeydXrj StWafis = Magna Constructio = Almagest = 

The Great System of Astronomy. This was his great master- 
piece. It is a treatise on Astronomy, containing all the 
principles of the Ptolemaic system. 

2. Terpd/SifiXos = Quadripartite. A treatise in four books on 

the influence of the stars. A thoroughly pagan treatise on 
Astrology. 

3. Kapnos or Centiloquy, or Book of a hundred aphorisms ; 

a fifth book containing the fruit of the former four, and 
a kind of supplement to them. As an example of the 
aphorisms, we may quote the following, " Love and hatred 
lessen the most important, as they magnify the most trivial 
things." 

4. A Treatise on the Signification of the Fixed Stars. A daily 

calendar of the risings and settings of the stars, and the 
weather produced thereby. 

5. The Geographia. 

6. The Canon or Table of Reigns given above. 

Ptolemy's Canon is described in the article on " Chronology," in the 
Encyclopedia Britannica, nth Edition, as " the only authentic source of 
the history of Assyria and Babylonia before the recent discoveries at Nineveh." 
This expresses the view now held by most modern scholars, but we must not 
overlook the fact that the authenticity here ascribed to it belongs equally 
to the Biblical Record. It is frequently said that the Assyrian List of Eponyms 
confirms the Assyrian part of the Canon of Ptolemy, and that this ought 
to give us confidence in the rest of the Canon. True, but wherever the Assyrian 
List of Eponyms confirms the Assyrian part of the Canon of Ptolemy, it 
confirms also the Assyrian part of the Biblical Record of the Old Testament. 
It is strange that scholars do not see this. Still more strange that since the 
Canon of Ptolemy agrees with the Assyrian Eponym list in those parts in 
which the Biblical Record also agrees with it, they should regard this as proof 



4 o 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



of the authenticity of the Canon of Ptolemy, but not as proof of the authenticity 
of the Biblical Record, which they immediately proceed to correct by the 
Canon of Ptolemy, in those later parts, in which there is no Assyrian Record, 
and by the Assyrian Eponym List, in those earlier parts of which there is no 
record in the Canon of Ptolemy. If agreement with the Assyrian Records 
authenticates Ptolemy's Canon it authenticates the Biblical Record also. 
The three records are in agreement wherever they all meet together. The 
Biblical Record does not positively disagree with the Assyrian Record, but 
there is a period for which there are no x\ssyrian Records, for the contemporary 
Assyrian records, from the 14th year of Amaziah (B.C. 833) to the 35th of Uzziah 
(B.C. 772), are a blank. According to Willis J. Beecher this is a period of 
61 years, during which the only Assyrian Records are those of the 10 years' 
reign of Shalmanezer III (IV), a net blank of 51 years between the two Assyrian 
Kings, Ramman-nirari III and Asshur-daan III. The Assyrian Records 
omit these 51 years, consequently we must either omit 51 years of the history 
contained in the Biblical Record, or else add 51 years to the Assyrian Record, 
for the events of the Biblical and the Assyrian Records synchronize both 
before and after. 

As Ptolemy's Canon does not begin till B.C. 747, or 25 years after the close 
of this period of 51 years, it is illegitimate to say that the agreement between 
the Assyrian Eponym Canon and Ptolemy's Canon at a later period must 
lead us to pass sentence in favour of the Assyrian Records and against the 
Biblical Records, at an earlier period, for at that later period there is the same 
agreement between the Assyrian Eponym Canon and the Biblical Records 
that there is between the Assyrian Eponym Canon and Ptolemy's Canon. 

The real explanation of the difference between the Assyrian Records 
and the Biblical Records is probably this : Assyria was overtaken by some 
disaster, and the 51 names were either lost by accident, or destroyed by design. 
The longer Chronology of the Biblical Records is supported (1) by the Biblical 
accounts of the events which took place during these 51 years, (2) by the long 
numbers given in Josephus, (3) by the synchronism of the Egyptian date of 
the Invasion of Shishak, in Rehoboam's time, with the Biblical date B.C. 978, 
and not with the Assyrian date B.C. 927, and (4) by the explanation given by 
Georgius Syncellus (c. a.d. 800), in his Historia Chronographia, of the reason 
why Ptolemy commenced his Canon in the year B.C. 747, and did not include 
in it the earlier period in which the discrepancy of 51 years occurs, viz., that 
the Assyrian Records for that period had been tampered with. He says : 
" Nabonassar, King of Babylon, having collected the acts of his predecessors, 
destroyed them in order that the computation of the reigns of the Assyrian 
Kings might be made from himself." It is most probable that Assyria was 
overtaken by some unknown disaster just after the time of the powerful 
monarch Ramman-nirari III, at the beginning of the blank period of 51 years. 
For in his time we find the Assyrians taking tribute from the whole region 
of the Mediterranean, Judah alone excepted, whilst at the end of the blank 
period, in the reign of Asshur-daan III, we find that their power over this 
region had been lost, and that they were now engaged in a desperate struggle 
to regain it. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



4i 



The fact is (1) the Biblical, the Assyrian and the Ptolemaic Records are 
: all agreed with regard to a certain central period ; (2) the Biblical and the 
Assyrian Records do not agree at an earlier period unless we admit a break 
«of 51 years, but there the Ptolemaic Record has not begun. On the other 
hand (3) the Biblical Record (as interpreted by the present writer) and the 
Ptolemaic Record do not agree with regard to a later period, but there the 
-Assyrian Record has ceased. Any conclusion drawn from these premises 
to the effect that since the chronological data of Ptolemy are confirmed by 
the Assyrian Chronology our verdict must be pronounced against the Scriptural 
system, is absolutely unwarranted. The authenticity of the Canon of Ptolemy 
"is established, by its agreement with the Assyrian Eponym Canon, just so 
far as the authenticity of the Biblical Record is established by its agreement 
with the Assyrian Eponym Canon, but no further. The point in dispute 
between Ptolemy's Canon and the Biblical Record lies, not in the Assyrian 
but in the Persian Period. 

One other fact must be borne in mind. Ptolemy is not like the Greek 
•and Latin historians, such as Herodotus and Tacitus, bearing witness to 
the truth of contemporary events. He belongs to the 2nd Century A.D., 
■and the point in dispute refers to his figures for the period of the Persian 
Empire some 500 years before. He writes no history. He merely gives a 
list of names and figures. He is not a historian vouching for the truth of fa:ts 
•of which he has personal knowledge, but the contriver of a scheme filling 
up gaps in the history he has received, and dating events by means of 
astronomical computations. Such testimony cannot for one moment be 
-compared with the continuous records of contemporary witnesses like Ezra, 
Nehemiah and Daniel. 

To the list of these six early Greek authors must be added the name of 
the Latin writer Censorinus. 

7. Censorinus (a.d. 238) wrote his work De die Natali in the year a.d. 238. 
Like Ptolemy he was a compiler of dates and a calculator of 
Eras. He fixed the date of the last Sothic period before his own 
time, as that covered by the years B.C. 1321-A.D. 139. This 
'calculation is used by Egyptologers in dating the reign of 
Merenptah, the Pharaoh of the Exodus. The passage is one of 
first rate importance. It is therefore given in full. Censorinus 
says : — 

" The Egyptians in the formation of their great year had no regard 
to the moon. In Greece the Egyptian year is called ' cynical ' (doglike), 
in Latin ' canicular " because it commences with the rising of the 
Canicular or dogstar (Sirius), to which is fixed the first day of the month 
which the Egyptians call Thoth. Their civil year had but 365 days 
without any intercalation. Thus with the Egyptians the space of four 
years is shorter by one day than the space of four natural years, and a 
complete synchronism is only established at the end of 1461 years " 
(Chapter XVIII). 

" But of these Eras the beginnings always take place on the first day 



42 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



of the month which is called Thoth among the Egyptians, a day which, 
this present year (a.d. 238) corresponds to the Vllth day of the Kalends 
of July (June 25), whilst 100 years ago this same day corresponded, 
to the Xllth day of the Kalends of August (July 21) at which time 
the dogstar is wont to rise in Egypt " (Chapter XXI). 

This information is used by Egyptologers in translating the Egyptian 
Vague year of 365 days into the Julian year of 365J days. Taking together 
the somewhat doubtful testimony of Manetho and the calculations of modern 
Astronomers, based on the information given by Censorinus, they are able 
to arrive at a date for the reign of Merenptah, the Pharaoh of the Exodus. 
But the validity of the result obtained is dependent upon the truth of a con- 
siderable number of assumptions, and cannot be regarded as anything but 
hypothetical or tentative. 

Another calculation by Censorinus of still more fundamental importance 
is his determination of the date of the 1st Olympiad. This he places in the 
1014th year before the consulship of Ulpius and Pontianus, a.d. 238. Of these 
10 14 years, 238 belong to the present Era a.d. This leaves 776 for the number 
of years before the commencement of the present era, and accordingly the 
1st Olympiad is dated B.C. 776. 

The fragment is here given in full. It is taken from Cory's Ancient 
Fragments. 

" I will not treat of that interval of time which Varro calls historic ; 
for he divides the times into three parts. The first from the beginning 
of mankind to the former cataclysm. The second, which extends to 
the 1st Olympiad, is denominated Mythic, because in it the fabulous 
achievements are said to have happened. The third, which extends 
from the 1st Olympiad to ourselves, is called historic, because the 
actions which have been performed in it are related in authentic history. 

" The first period, whether it had a beginning, or whether it always 
was, certainly it is impossible to know the number of its years. Neither 
is the second period accurately determined, yet it is believed to contain 
about 1600 years, but from the former cataclysm, which they call that 
of Ogyges, to the reign of Inarchus, about 400 years, and from thence 
to the 1st Olympiad, something more than 400 ; of which alone, inas- 
much as they are the last years of the Mythic period, and next within 
memory, certain writers have attempted more accurately to determine 
the number. Thus Sosibius writes that they were 395 ; Eratosthenes 407 ; 
Timaeus 417 ; Orethres 164. Many others also have different opinions, 
the very discrepancy of which shows the uncertainty in which it is 
involved. 

" Concerning the third interval, there was also some disagreement 
among different writers, though it is confined within a period of only 
six or seven years. Varro has, however, examined the obscurity in 
which it is involved, and comparing with his usual sagacity the chronicles 
and annals of different states, calculating the intervals, wanted, or to be 
added by reckoning them backwards, has at length arrived at the truth, 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



43' 



and brought it to light. So that not only a determinate number of 
years, but even of days can be set forth. 

" According to which calculations, unless I am greatly deceived, 
the present year, whose name and title is that of the consulships of 
Ulpius and Pontianus, is from the ist Olympiad the 1014th, reckoning, 
from the summer, at which time of the year the Olympic games are 
celebrated ; but from the foundation of Rome it is the 991st ; but 
this is from the Palalia (April 21st), from which the years, ab urbe condita, 
are reckoned. But of those years which are called the Julian years, 
it is the 283rd, reckoning from the Kalends of January, from which day 
of the year Julius Caesar ordered the beginning of the year to be reckoned. 
But of those years which are called the Augustan it is the 265th, reckoning 
also from the Kalends of January of that year, in which, upon the 16th 
of the Kalends of February (Feb. 15th) the son of the Divine Julius 
Caesar was saluted Emperor and Augustus, on the motion of Numatius 
Plaucus, by the Senate and the rest of the citizens in the consulship of 
himself for the 7th time, and M. Vipsanus Agrippa. 

" But the Egyptians, who two years before had been reduced under 
the dominion of the Roman people, reckon 268 Augustan years : for 
by the Egyptians in like manner as by ourselves, certain years are 
recorded, and they call their era the Era of Nabonnagarius, and their 
years are calculated from the first year of his reign, of which years the 
present is the 986th. 

" The Philippic years also are used among them, and are calculated 
from the death of Alexander the Great, and from thence to the present 
time 562 years have elapsed. But the beginning of these years are 
always reckoned from the first day of that month which is called by the 
Egyptians Thoth, which happened this year upon the 7th of the Kalends 
of July (25th of June), for a hundred years ago from the present year 
of the consulship of Ulpius and Brutius the same fell upon the 12th of 
the Kalends of August (21st July), on which day Canicula regularly 
rises in Egypt. Whence we know that of this great year which was 
before mentioned under the name of Solar Canicular or Trieteris, by 
which it is commonly called, the present current year must be the 
100th. 

" I have been careful in pointing out the commencement of all 
these years, lest anyone should not be aware of the customs in this 
respect, which are not less various than the opinions of the philosophers. 
It is commenced by some with the New Sun, that is at the Winter 
Solstice, by many at the Summer Solstice ; others again reckon from 
the Vernal, or from the Autumnal Equinox. Some also begin the year 
from the rising or the setting of Vergilia (Pleiades), but many from- 
the rising of the Dogstar." 

Hence the year B.C. 776, thus determined by Censorinus, has been made 
the pivot upon which Chronology has been made to depend. The scheme 
or framework being determined beforehand, all that remained was to 



44 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



make the facts fit into the space allotted to them, and all dates, both sacred 
and profane, have been made to conform to the requirements of the scheme. 

Eusebius accepted this basis, and adapted the Chronology of the Old 
Testament to it, and he and Jerome, who translated his work into Latin, 
are followed by all subsequent writers. They all adopt the principle, 
though they differ somewhat in their application of it. Eusebius identifies 
the year B.C. 776 with the 49th of Uzziah. Elsewhere he copies Julius Africanus 
and identifies it with the 1st year of Ahaz. Syncellus identifies it with the 
45th year of Uzziah. Clinton says it was in reality the 33rd year of Uzziah. 
But the method adopted is the same, and through Eusebius the Era has passed 
into the works of all subsequent writers, and thus the space of time between 
the first of Cyrus as Sole Rex and the year of our Lord a.d. i, has been fixed 
beforehand, as a space of 536 years instead of 454, as it is by Daniel. The 
important thing to note is that this fixing of the dates is not based on con- 
temporary testimony like that of Jeremiah 25 \ in which we are distinctly 
told that the 4th year of Jehoiakim was the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar, 
but is arrived at by a process of computation worked out 1,000 years 
after the event, and resting ultimately upon the shadowy calculations of 
Eratosthenes and Timaeus, who obtain their data by multiplying the number 
of Ephors, Kings, Archons or Priestesses by the number of years which they 
imagined each of these various officers would be likely to have occupied these 
several posts. 

II. The Early Christian Chronologers. 

1. Theophilus of Antioch (3rd Century a.d.) was one of the great 

luminaries of the Early Christian Church, and the founder of 
the historical school of Antiochian Theology, which was opposed 
to the allegorical school of Clement and Origen of Alexandria. 
According to Abulfaragi, he reckoned 5197 years from the Creation 
to the Era of the Seleucidae, B.C. 312, which gives the date of 
Creation as B.C. 5509, in accordance with the longer reckoning 
of the LXX. But he reckons 330 years from the Creation of 
Adam to the birth of Seth, and he omits the two years after the 
Flood. 

2. Julius Africanus (c. a.d. 220-230), ambassador to Elagabolus, a.d. 218. 

He rebuilt his native town, Emmaus, a.d. 222, and died a.d. 232. 
He was the author of Pentabiblos, a system of Chronology begin- 
ning with the Creation of Adam, which he dated B.C. 5500, in 
.-accordance with the reckoning of the LXX. He omits the 
two years after the Flood, a very common error, and he calculates 
the death of Peleg, whose name he interprets as signifying a 
great fundamental division of time, at precisely 3,000 years 
from the Creation. Other millenary systems usually make it 
3,000 years to the 130th year of Peleg, his age at the birth of 
his son Reu, according to the figures of the LXX. 

3. Clement of Alexandria (3rd Century a.d.) was a disciple of 

Pantaenus, the founder of the famous catechetical school at 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



45 



Alexandria, and the teacher of Origen. He was a widely-read 
scholar, familiar with the whole body of classic literature, and 
with the books of the Old and New Testaments. He was the 
founder of the allegorical school of Biblical Interpretation, and 
the author of some able defences of Christianity against the 
absurdities and immoralities of pagan theology. The four 
works of his that have come down to us are (i) An Admonition 
to the Gentiles, (2) The Paedagogue, (3) Slromata, and (4) Who is 
the rich man that is saved ? Amongst his lost works the most 
important, known to us only through fragmentary paraphrases, 
in other authors, was his great work entitled Hypolyposes i.e., 
Types or Adumbrations. 
4. Eusebius (a.d. 265-340) was the Father of Ecclesiastical history, 
and the most learned man of his age. In his Ecclesiastical History 
he traces the history of the Christian Church from the birth 
of Christ to the year 324. His Preparalio Evangelica and his 
Demonstrate Evangelica still exist in an imperfect form. Of his 
Chronicon, the treatise in which he elaborates his Chronology, 
we have fragments in Greek, and a translation into Latin by 
Jerome. The name of Eusebius is one of first rate importance 
in the history of Chronology. It was Eusebius who first adopted 
the hypothetical Era of the Greek Olympiads, and assuming 
its truth, equated the years there given to the annals of the 
Old Testament, thus creating an error of 82 years according to 
the present writer's interpretation of the Hebrew Records, by 
placing the 1st Olympiad 82 years higher than the truth, and 
adapting the events of history to the Chronology thus framed, 
instead of adapting the framework of the Chronology to the 
events. The importance of Eusebius lies in the fact that the 
example which he set, and the figures which he gave, have been 
followed ever since. 

5. Epiphanius (a.d. 310-402) was born in Palestine. He became 

Bishop of Constantia, in the Island of Cyprus, in the year a.d. 367. 
He was a good theologian, an accurate scholar, and a great 
linguist. His Refutation of all Heresies was a standard defence of 
Christianity against all forms of Pagan, Gnostic and Arian error. 
It is from the first book of his work Against Heresies that the 
motto of the present work has been taken, as an indication of the 
writer's belief that any departure from the methods of exact 
science, and any alteration of the Massoretic Text, or any variation 
from the words of the Hebrew Verity can only lead us away 
from the Truth. Epiphanius accused Aquila, first a Pagan, 
then a Christian, and finally a renegade Jew, of wresting Scripture 
in his translation of the Old Testament into Greek (published 
a.d. 128) in order to invalidate its testimonies concerning Christ. 

6. Ephraem Syrus (a.d. 325-378), a Syrian theologian, born at Nisibis, 

He retired to Edessa, where he lived in retirement. He wrote 



.46 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



in Syriac, but his works have been translated into Greek and 
Latin. He adopted the Chronology of the LXX. and accused 
the Jews of having subtracted 600 years from the generations 
of Adam, Seth, etc., in order that their own books might not 
convict them of the fact that Christ had already come, He 
having been predicted to appear for the deliverance of mankind 
after 5,500 years. In this Ephraem was wrong, for it was the 
Greek Translators of the LXX. text who added the six centuries 
to the Chronology of the Hebrew Text, and not vice versa. The 
" prediction " alluded to was the almost universal tradition of 
the Jews that the world would last for 7,000 years, and as man 
was made on the sixth day, and fell by sin, so the Messiah would 
come to redeem the world in the sixth millennium, an. hom. 5000 
to 6000, and the date of the Creation according to the LXX. was 
B.C. 5508. 

7. Jerome (a.d. 340-420), called in Greek Hieronymus, was one of the 
most learned scholars of the Early Christian Church. He studied 
Hebrew, and spent some years in a cave at Bethlehem, where 
he lived a celibate life, and devoted himself to the work of trans- 
lating the Old Testament into Latin, his version, the Latin 
Vulgate (a.d. 397), being regarded as authoritative, or Canonical 
in the Roman Catholic Church ever since the Council of Trent, 
a.d. 1545-1563. His other writings included his De Viris 
Illustrious, and his Dialogi contra Pelagianos and his translation 
into Latin of Eusebius' Chronicon, which thus determined the 
Chronology of Western Europe, till the time of Bede, Eusebius 
being followed by all sorts of authors right down to the present 
day. 



III. Byzantine Chronologers. These are contained in the Corpus 
.Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, a collection of works by various authors, 
the three principal of which are the works of Georgius Syncellus, and Johannes 
Malalas, and the Chronicon Paschale. 

1. Georgius Syncellus (a.d. 792), Monk and Historian. His Chronographia 
contains a most valuable account of the Chronology of the 
Byzantine School of learning in the Centuries between the Early 
Christian Fathers and the Revival of Learning in modern times, 
led, in the department of Chronology, by Scaliger. Syncellus 
has given us two very valuable Canons, or lists of Kings, (1) The 
Astronomical Canon which he entitles " The Years from 
Nabonassar — according to the astronomical Canon." This is 
precisely Ptolemy's Canon from the first year of Nabonassar 
to the last year of Alexander the Great. (2) The Ecclesiastical 
Canon, which he entitles " The years from Salmonasar, who is 
also Nabonassar according to the Ecclesiastical reckoning, up 
to Cyrus, and thence to Alexander of Macedom" 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 47 



2. Johannes Malalas or Malelas (9th Century a.d.), another Byzantine 

historian, writes another Chronographia. 

3. The Chronicon Paschale also belongs to this group. 

IV. The Great Armenian Chronologer — Abulfaragus, Abulfaragi, Abul- 
Faraj, Gregory or Bar-Hebraeus (a.d. 1226-1266). 

This celebrated historian, whose real name was Gregorius Bar- 
Hebraeus, wrote a Compendium of Universal History from the Creation 
of the World to a.d. 1273, entitled The History of the Dynasties. 
Abulfaragus was an Armenian Jew. He was brought up as a physician. 
After his conversion he settled in Tripoli, and became the first Bishop 
of Guba (1246) and afterwards Bishop of Aleppo. Although he was a 
leader of the Jacobite sect of Christians in Syria, he was much admired 
by Mohammedan, Jewish and Christian writers. He was at once the 
most learned, the most accurate, and the most faithful historian of all 
the Syrian writers. His history of the world contains valuable informa- 
tion respecting the Saracens, the Tartar Mongols, and the Conquest 
of Ghenghis-Khan. Around his name there has sprung up an extensive 
literature, the titles of which occupy many pages in the Catalogue 
of the British Museum. To Abulfaragi we owe the most correct adjust - 
ment of the Saracen Dynasty. 

V. Modern Chronologers. 

Of these the number is legion. We select only a few of the more impor- 
tant. Most of them are mentioned in the article on " Chronology " in the 
Encyclopedia Britannica (nth edition). 

1. Joseph Scaliger (a.d. 1540-1609) was born at Agen in France. He 
studied at the University of Paris, and was a man of exceptional 
genius, and consummate scholarship. He was converted to 
Protestantism, and lectured at Geneva. His writings mark 
the rise of a new era in historical criticism. His monumental 
work De Emendatione Temporum (published a.d. 1596) laid the 
foundations of the science of modern Chronology. He was 
distinguished by the brilliancy of his genius and the extent of his 
erudition. He invented the Julian period of 7980 years from 
B.C. 4714 to a.d. 3266, formed by the multiplication of the cycles 
of the sun 28 years, the moon 19 years, and the indiction 15 years. 
In its first year the cycle of the sun was 1, of the moon 1, and of the 
indiction 1. The three cycles will not so correspond again till 
the end of the cycle. The Julian period has no relation to the 
Julian year or the Julian Era, both of which take their names 
from Julius Caesar. The Julian period is named after the family 
name of Scaliger, his father's name being Julius Caesar Scaliger. 
Joseph Scaliger discovered the cause of the precession of the 
Equinoxes. He interpreted the prophecy of Daniel's 70 weeks 
.as ending at the destruction of Jerusalem, a.d. 70, and conse- 



4 8 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



quently as commencing B.C. 420 in the 4th year of; Darius Nothusv 
He inserted the 5 years omitted by the Jews, to make up the- 
430 years from Abraham's migration into Canaan to the 
Exodus. 

2. Sethus Calvisius (a.d. 1603) was the author of an important work 

which he called the Opus Chronologicum. 

3. Dionysius Petavius (Denis Petau, b. a.d. 15-83). was a Chronologer 

of the first rank. He was born at Orleans, and published in 
1627 his great work De doctrina temporum, in 1630 a con- 
tinuation of the same, and in 1633-4 an abridgment of it, entitled 
Rationarum Temporum. Petavius was a Catholic, and his 
system is used principally in the Romish Church. He was. 
learned in languages, deeply read in universal history, a capable 
mathematician, an astronomer equal to the calculation of eclipses,, 
a man of indefatigable industry and patience,, and a consummate 
Chronologer. He exposed the errors of the ingenious and fanciful 
scheme of his rival Scaliger. He adhered to the Hebrew Verity* 
and reprobated any and every " emendation "' of, or departure 
from, the Massoretic Text. He entered the following useful 
caveat against the substitution of chronological hypotheses 
and un verifiable conjectures for the patient unravelling of the 
meaning of the Text, in which alone is to be found the testimony 
of the ancients, the only true basis of scientific Chronology.. 
"As nothing is more easy, so nothing is less tolerable, than to 
transfer to the most ancient writers the fault of our own error 
and unskilfulness ; on the contrary „ nothing is more prudent and 
more desirable than to attribute very much to the authority and 
fidelity of the ancients ; and not to recede therefrom, except 
where we are admonished and convinced by the clearest and. 
plainly necessary indications of truth." 

4. James Ussher (a.d. 1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh, was born at 

Dublin, and educated at Trinity College. He took holy orders 
in 1 60 1, and soon acquired a reputation as a powerful preacher, 
both in Dublin and London. In 1607 he became Professor of' 
Divinity at Trinity College, Dublin. He rose by his transcendent 
merits, and became in 1625 Archbishop of Armagh, and in 1634 
Primate of all Ireland. His greatest work is the Annates Veteris 
et Novi Testamenti (1650-1654), translated in 1658 as The- 
Annals of the world . . . to the beginning of the Emperor Vespasian's 
Reign. Ussher was a profound scholar, and one of the brightest 
luminaries of the Church of Ireland. He was a munificent 
patron of Oriental Literature. To him, we owe the publication 
of the Samaritan Pentateuch. He always admitted the liability 
of both the Old Testament and the New to the errors of copyists, 
but he adhered very closely to the Massoretic Text of the Old 
Testament, and was enabled thereby to construct a system of 
Chronology which has held its own to this day.. His dates were 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 49 



revised by Wm. Lloyd, Bishop of St. Asaph (subsequently Bishop 
of Worcester), and published by him in the margin of his Holy 
Bible with Chronological Dates and Index. " Lloyd's Bible " (pub- 
lished I70i)is thus the first Bible published with marginal dates. 

The principal improvement of Ussher is the correction of 
the age of Terah at the birth of Abraham, from 70 years to 130. 
He dates the creation of the world in the year B.C. 4004, a 
remarkable astronomical epoch which La Place described as " one 
in which the great axis of the earth's orbit coincided with the 
line of the equinoxes, and consequently when the true and 
mean equinoxes were united." His principal errors were his 
misinterpretation of "the 480th year" in 1 Kings 6 1 , and his 
misdating of the accession of Uzziah in the 15th instead of in 
the 27th year of Jeroboam II. His system has prevailed princi- 
pally in the British Empire, and amongst the Reformed Churches 
of the Continent, as that of Petavius has prevailed amongst 
divines of the Church of Rome. Ussher is not infallible, but 
he thoroughly deserved the universal esteem which his chrono- 
logical achievements secured for him. 

5. Philippe Lobbe (fl. 1651) is the author of a treatise entitled Regia 

Epitome Historiae Sacrae et profanae. 

6. Beveridge (fl. 1669) was a mathematical genius. In his Institutionum 

Chronologicarum libri duo, he gives rules for adjusting the Julian 
Period and the Mohammedan Hegeir a to the Christian Era. 

7. Sir John Mar sham (fl. 1672), was the author of the Chronicus 

Canon Egyptiacus Ebraicus et Graecus, a learned, acute, and 
ingenious, but unsuccessful attempt to reconcile the comparative 
Chronologies of Egyptian, Hebrew, Phoenician, and Greek 
antiquities. He steers a middle course between Petavius and 
Ussher. He followed Josephus, and was himself followed by 
Sir Isaac Newton in identifying the famous Egyptian King 
Sesostris with the Sesac, or Shishak, who plundered the Temple 
in the reign of Rehoboam. 

8. Paul Pezron (fl. 1687), is the author of a chronological work 

entitled L'Antiquitd des temps re'tablie' et dSfendu, published in 
1687. Four years later he published a DSfense of the same. 

9. Henry Dodwell (fl. 1701) wrote a treatise on technical Chronology 

entitled De Veteribus Graicorum Romanorumque cyclis. 
10. Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), the illustrious natural philosopher, 
was born at Woolsthrope Manor in Lincolnshire. He was the 
greatest mathematician of modern times. He discovered the 
binomial theorem, and the method of fluxions, and in 1666 
the contemplation of the fall of an apple led to his greatest 
discovery of all, that of the law of gravitation. The following 
year he discovered the composite nature of light. He held 
the Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge for 33 years. In 1699 
he became Master of the Mint. He represented his University 

D 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



in Parliament, and was elected President of the Royal Society, 
a post which he occupied for 24 years. He was knighted in 
1705. He lived to his eightieth year, and was buried in 
Westminster Abbey. Bishop Burnet described him as the 
" whitest soul he ever knew." Sir Isaac Newton made a hobby 
of Chronology, and became an ardent student of the subject 
during the last 30 years of his life. He read widely, and thought 
deeply on the problems of early Chronology, and came to the 
conclusion that the Greeks and the Latins, no less than the 
Babylonians, the Assyrians and the Egyptians, had greatly 
exaggerated their antiquity, from motives of national vanity. 
In his great work The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, 
which was published posthumously in 1728, the year after his 
death, he endeavoured to construct a system on new bases, 
independent of the Greek Chronologers, whose unsatisfactory 
method of reckoning by generations, reigns and successions 
he exposed, laying bare the foundations on which their Chron- 
ology rested, and thereby overthrowing the elementary dates 
of Greek, Latin and Egyptian Chronology. He reduced the 
date of the taking of Troy from B.C. 1183 to 904. He followed 
Sir John Marshall in identifying Sesostris with Shishak, whose 
date he thus reduced from B.C. 1300 to 965. Newton cites 
Thucydides and Socrates, the musician Terpander, and the 
Olympic disk of Lycurgus, he uses his calculation of the 
precession of the equinoxes since the time of Hipparcus, and 
he substitutes a reckoning of 20 years each instead of 33 for 
the succession of the Kings of Sparta. Newton cannot be said 
to have established his point, but he has certainly destroyed 
the possibility of regarding the Chronology of the Greeks as a 
stable foundation for any system of Chronology that can be 
used as a standard by which to judge, and correct, the testimony 
of the Old Testament. Yet this conjectural Chronology of the 
Greeks is the foundation upon which the Canon of Ptolemy 
rests, and the Canon of Ptolemy is the only obstacle in the way 
of the establishment of the Chronology of the Old Testament. 
Alphonse des Vignolles (fl. 1738), has written a very valuable 
treatise on Chronology entitled the Chronologie de Fhistoire 
Sainte. Des Vignolles, Jackson, and Hales are the main 
advocates of a return to the longer Patriarchal Chronology 
based on the LXX. in preference to the shorter Patriarchal 
Chronology given in the Hebrew Text, which was adopted by 
Scaliger, Petavius and Ussher at an earlier date, and subsequently 
by Clinton. Canon Rawlinson, and most Egyptologists adopt 
the longer Chronology, or demand a still earlier date for the 
rise of civilization in Egypt, but the entire weight of their 
argument rests upon their interpretation of the testimony of 
Manetho and Berosus, and the astronomical calculations by 
which it is supported. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 51 



12. N. Leuglet Dufresnoy (fl. 1744) is the author of some very care- 

fully compiled dates, entitled Tablettes chronologiques de 
Vhisioire universelle. 

13. The Benedictine Congregation of Saint Maur published in 1750, 

in one large quarto volume, their elaborate treatise V Art de 
verifier les dates. This was subsequently enlarged into 38 
octavo volumes published between 1818 & 1831. 

14. John Jackson (fl. 1752), the author of Chronological Antiquities, 

and a disciple of the acute and learned Vossius, is the first 
English Chronologer of the modern school to break away from 
the sure ground of the Hebrew Text, hitherto accepted by 
Scaliger, Petavius and Ussher alike, and to adopt the longer 
Chronology of the Greek LXX. His work is distinguished 
by learning and ingenuity. It reveals a spirit of adventure, 
and a love of change, and abounds in ingenious criticisms and 
" conjectural emendations " of the received systems. His 
fundamental error is his introduction of the 130 years of the 
interpolated Second Cainan, between Arphaxad and Salah, 
from the LXX. version of Gen. 11 13 , where alone it is to be found. 
He also adopted the common error that Terah was 70 years 
old at the birth of Abraham, though Ussher had proved that 
he was 130. He took a step in the right direction in rejecting 
Ussher's interpretation of the length of the period from the 
Exodus to the 4th year of Solomon in 1 Kings 6 1 , and sub- 
stituted 579 years instead of 480. It should have been 594 
years. He critically determined his fundamental date B.C. 586 
for the destruction of the Temple. 

15. John Kennedy (fl. 1752) was the Rector of Bradley in Derbyshire. 

His system is based on the Hebrew Text, of which he has made 
a special study from the point of view of astronomy. His 
New method of stating and explaining the Scripture Chronology 
upon Mosaic Astronomical principles, mediums and data, as 
laid down in the Pentateuch develops the astronomical prin- 
ciples followed by Moses, and demonstrates their superiority to 
modern methods of intercalation from the Metonic and the 
Callipic cycles to the Julian and the Gregorian rectifications 
of the length of the year. He translates Hebrew technical terms 
like Tekuphath Hasshanah = The Vernal or the Autumnal Equinox, 
explains that Moses always measures time by solar years, and 
always computes time by lunar years. He shows how time 
is measured by the Hebrew Shanah or year, consisting of an 
annual revolution of the earth round the sun, containing the 
whole of the four seasons, and therefore always invariable, and 
how the Mognadim (translated seasons), the sacred feasts of the 
Jews (Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles), are pinned down 
to this solar year. His exposition of the story of the flood 
shows that Noah was exactly 365 days in the ark, and explains 
Moses' method of computing in terms of the months of the lunar 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



year, whilst measuring time in terms of the solar year. In 
his great work Physiological Chronology, a bulky quarto volume 
of 750 pages, he dates the creation B.C. 4007. He postulates 
the infallibility of the Hebrew Text, which he says " has never 
been corrupted in the article of Chronology by Jew or Pagan, 
by chance or design. It is not more certain that there is a sun 
and moon in the heavens than it is that not a single error 
of the press, or of a Jewish transcriber, has crept into the 
present copies of the Hebrew Massoretic Text, to give the least 
interruption to its chronological series of years." Kennedy's 
view of the infallibility of the Hebrew Massoretic Text, coupled 
with his feeling of certainty with regard to the results obtained 
from his mathematically exact astronomical calculations, accounts 
for the dogmatic tone which characterizes his works. This 
note of infallibility is very annoying to modern scholars, who 
rejoice in the larger liberty afforded by the method of hypothesis 
and conjecture ! 

16. John Blair (fl. 1754) takes rank with the most painstaking and 

accurate Chronologers of modern times. He published his 
Chronology and History of the World first in 1754, and subse- 
quently prepared a new edition very much enlarged. This 
was published in 1857. He adopts the method of tabulation, 
and aims at precision of statement and accuracy in his results. 

17. Principal Playfair of St. Andrews, Scotland (fl. 1784), has given 

us in his System of Chronology a technical and a historical 
treatise which may be regarded as an improvement on Blair's 
Chronology. He begins with an account of the principles of 
the science, and carefully defines his terms. 

18. A. H. L. Heeren (fl. 1799) is the author of a work in German 

entitled a Handbuch der Geschichte der Staaten des Alterthums. 
It was published in 1799, and is characterized by those qualities 
of comprehensiveness, thoroughness, and modernity of stand- 
point which we look for in works by German writers. 

19. G. G. Bredow (fl. 1803) has given us another German vade mecum 

on the subject, entitled a Handbuch der alien Geschichte, 
Geographic, und Chronologic. It was published in 1803, and 
contains his Historische Tabellen. 

20. Wm. Hales (fl. 1809) one of the ablest and best of our modern 

Chronologers. The fulness, variety, and sustained interest 
of his treatment of the subject in the four octavo volumes of 
his New Analysis of Chronology and Geography, History and 
Prophecy, is altogether beyond praise. This was published 
in 1809-1814. His object is a comprehensive treatment of 
the whole subject in all its branches, on principles it once both 
Scriptural and scientific. He gives an interesting account of 
the elements of technical Chronology, a review of the history 
of Chronology, and some valuable rules for " chronologizing." 
His Chronology of the Old Testament treats of the period from 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



53 



Adam to Herod the Great. His Chronology of the New 
Testament treats of the period from Herod the Great to the 
destruction of Jerusalem, to which is appended an exposition 
of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, in reference to the 
prophetic history of the Church. In his final volume he 
surveys the entire field of profane Chronology, including the 
remains of Sanchoniathon, Berosus, Manetho, and the important 
historical works of Ctesias, Herodotus, the Persian historian 
Mirkhond, Ptolemy, Abulfaragus, and Syncellus. He follows 
Jackson in adopting the longer Chronology of the LXX., but 
" judiciously " rejects the Second Cainan. His date for the 
Creation is B.C. 541 1. He has a decidedly modern note, and 
in his treatment of Scripture he tempers reverence with intelli- 
gence, and lowers the " superstitious veneration of the Hebrew 
Verity or supposed immaculate purity of the Massoretic editions 
of the Hebrew Text to the proper level of rational respect." 
His reasons for rejecting the shorter Hebrew Chronology and 
adopting in preference the longer Greek Chronology of the 
LXX. are subjective and inconclusive. His work contains a 
very large quantity of useful chronological material, including 
many valuable Tables. 

21. C. G. Zumpt (fl. 1819) is the author of the Annates V eterum Regnorum. 

22. Buret de Longchamps (fl. 1821) has left us some valuable Tableaux 

Historiques Chronologiques et Glographiques. 

23. Henry Fynes Clinton (fl. 1824) is perhaps the ablest, the soundest, 

and the most complete and satisfactory of all our modern 
Chronologers. His Fasti Hellenici (1 824-1 834), his Fasti Romani 
(1845-1850), and his Epitomes of these two elaborate works (1851- 
1853) are absolutely indispensable to anyone who desires to make 
an exhaustive study of the subject. His reasoning is clear, 
his authorities are numerous, and his tone is moderate. His 
three large quarto volumes of the Fasti Hellenici alone are a 
library in themselves. His Chronology contains perhaps fewer 
errors than that of any of his predecessors. He determines the 
Joshua-Judges " Chasm " (20 years instead of 13) and the 
Samuel " Chasm " (32 years instead of 20) by means of a 
subjective estimate, or conjecture, instead of by inference from 
the data contained in the Text, and for the Persian and Greek 
period from Cyrus to Christ, he adopts the figures of the Canon 
of Ptolemy instead of those of the prophet Daniel. Like most 
other Chronologers, he does not understand the Scripture method 
of recording the lengths of the reigns of the Kings of Israel 
and Judah. He is to be blamed for his assertion that the figures 
given in the Books of Kings and Chronicles are sometimes 
" corrupt " and to be rejected. But apart from these errors, 
which make his Era for the Creation B.C. 4138, just 96 years 
too long, he is a most worthy and a most judicious guide. 



54 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



24. Christian Ludwig Ideler (fl. 1825) has produced in his Handbuch 

der Mathematischen und technischen Chronologic a most valuable 
treatment of a recondite subject. His researches into the 
construction of the calendars used by all the different nations 
of antiquity, have opened up a mine of useful information. 
His Lehrbuch der Chronologie, published in 1831, is a smaller 
handbook upon the same subject. 

25. M. L'Abbd Raima (fl. 1819) makes considerable use of Ideler in 

his great work, Tables Chronologiques des Regnes de C. Plolemaeus. 
This was published in Paris in 181 9, and is an admirable account 
of Ptolemy's Canon, which he describes as " the most precious 
Monument of ancient Chronology." 

26. Sir Harris Nicholas (fl. 1833) is the author of a valuable Chronology 

of History (published in 1833). 

27. Edward Greswell (fl. 1852) has left us three large and important 

works on technical Chronology. (1) Fasti Temporis Catholici 
(1852), (2) Origines Kalendariae Italicae (1854) an .d (3) Origines 
Kalendariae Hellenicae (1862) 

28. B. B. Woodward & W. L. R. Cates (fl. 1872) published in 1892 

a most valuable Encyclopedia of Chronology. 

29. J. C. Macdonald (fl. 1897) has collected in his Chronologies and 

Calendars some interesting curiosities of Chronology. 

30. David Ross Fotheringham (fl. 1906) has written a useful little 

handbook on the Chronology of the Old Testament. 

Other works of equal importance are omitted for lack of space, or because 
they deal only with some one special aspect of the subject, but room must 
be found for the bare mention of (1) Benjamin Marshall's Chronological 
Tables (1713). Marshall was the literary executor of Bishop Lloyd, whom 
he closely followed. (2) Dr. Humphrey Prideaux's Historical Connection 
of the Old and New Testaments. The 1858 edition, revised by J. Talboys 
Wheeler, contains a valuable account of Rabbinic authorities on Chronology, 
by Dr. McCaul. (3) Schrader's Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, 
a Monumental work, but unfair to the Hebrew Records. (4) Sir Edward 
Denny's Seventy Weeks of Daniel; he is the first to explain the principle 
of Anno Dei reckonings. (5) Palmoni an essay written to prove that every 
date in the Bible is a fictitious construction, having less relation to objective 
fact than to the exercise of the mythopoetic faculty as applied to numbers. 
(6) Henry Browne's Ordo Saeculorum, an excellent Chronology of the Holy 
Scripture, working backwards from Christ to Adam, and eliciting the 
mystical qualities of the numbers of the years employed in the Divine 
Administration of the times and seasons. (7) Lumen's startling redatement 
of the days of Nehemiah in his Prince of Judah. (8) Sir Robert Anderson's 
Coming Prince. (9) Canon Girdlestone's excellent little 77 page Outlines 
of Bible Chronology. (10) Charles Foster Kent's Historical Bible, which 
construes the Chronology in accordance with the Higher Critical theory 
of the origin of the Text, and last, but not least, two works of surpassing 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 55 



merit. (11) Willis Judson Beecher's Dated Events of the Old Testament (1907), 
and (12) The Companion Bible, published by the Oxford University Press. 

Chapter II. The Trustworthiness of Testimony. 

The Science of History stands upon a different basis from that of the 
Science of Nature. In all matters relating to the facts and events of past 
history there is one and only one kind of proof possible, and that is, not 
deductive proof, as in Mathematics, and not inductive proof of the -kind 
which is admissible in the Natural Sciences, but legal, evidential, or historical 
proof, of the kind required in a Court of Law. 

If a man denies a mathematical truth, that truth can be demonstrated 
in such a way as to compel belief. If for example, a man denies that two 
and two make four, or that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two 
right angles, it is not the propositions that become of doubtful validity, 
but the competence or the sanity of the man who denies them. 

Or again, if he denies that oxygen and hydrogen under certain given con- 
ditions combine to form water, he can be taken into a chemical laboratory, 
in which the fact is verified, and ocular demonstration of its truth is given 
so as to again compel belief. 

But when we come to the sifting of evidence, and the proof of the truth 
of events belonging to the past, the case is essentially different. If a man 
denies that there ever was such a person as Alfred the Great, or William 
the Conqueror, or Napoleon, or Jesus Christ, Moses, Abraham, or Adam, 
the only kind of proof which it is possible to adduce in support of the fact 
of the past existence of these persons is that of evidence, or testimony. The 
lawyer " proves " his case by calling his witnesses ; the historian by adducing 
Monumental, documentary, or other evidence. 

The trustworthiness of testimony is the fundamental postulate of all 
history. If this be called in question it is impossible to proceed a single step 
in the Science of History. But some testimony is not trustworthy, and it 
is the business of the historian, or the Chronologer, to sift the evidence, to 
probe the character of the witness, and to test the trustworthiness of the 
testimony given. For the prosecution of this task certain rules have been 
laid down which define the limits within which testimony may be regarded 
as worthy of acceptance and belief. 

A credible witness is one who is at once both honest, capable and 
contemporary. 

Take the case of Alfred the Great and the cakes, which he is said to have 
spoiled. The story may be true, or it may not, but in any case it cannot 
be proved. For when the records are searched, and the evidence is examined, 
it is found that there is no document, no witness, no testimony of any kind 
in support of the truth of the story until we come to that of the Welsh 
historian, Aser, who was not only not contemporary with the event, but did 
not live till some two centuries later. It is, of course, quite possible that 
the story may have been preserved by tradition without embellishment or 
exaggeration, and without any other kind of departure from the truth, but 



56 



THE ROMANCE OF BTBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



the lack of contemporary evidence or testimony must ever prevent its taking 
rank as an assured historic fact. 

With the writers of the New Testament the case is entirely different. 
They were honest and capable men. They were also contemporary with 
the events which they record. When the Books of the New Testament 
were finally accorded a place in the Sacred Volume, the rule by which they 
were judged was, whether they were written by an Apostle, or by a companion 
of one of the Apostles, that is by one who was contemporary with the events 
narrated. The Apostles base the trustworthiness of their testimony upon 
the fact that they had themselves seen and heard the things which they record. 
" That which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we 

have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of Life 

that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you" (i John i 13 ). 
" And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true " (John 19 3 5 ). " We 
cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard" (Acts 4 20 ). 
Great stress was laid upon the fact that in order to be an Apostle at all, 
a man must be a contemporary of our Lord, and an eye-witness of the 
Resurrection : " Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all 

the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us must one 

be ordained to be a witness with us of the Resurrection" Acts 1 2 122 ). 

It was on this fact also that St. Paul, who (as far as we know) never saw 
our Lord in the days of His humiliation, based his claim to apostleship : " Am 
not I an Apostle ? Have not I seen the Lord ? " (1 Cor. 9 1 ). 

In like manner the writers of the remaining books of the New Testament, 
the companions of the Apostles, laid great stress on the fact that they also 
obtained the facts which they record from the lips of men who were " eye- 
witnesses and ministers of the Word" (Luke i 2 ). The required conditions 
are all fulfilled. The truth of the testimony of the writers is " proved " 
in the only way in which any recorded fact of past history can be " proved " 
at all. But the " proof " is not of such a nature as to compel belief. For 
belief is ultimately an act of the will, a revelation of personality, and a 
disclosure of presuppositions held in the mind, which make the evidence 
produced acceptable or inconclusive. 

The events recorded in the Old Testament are more distant, but the Canons 
of Credibility applied to the New Testament are equally valid for the Old. 
The remoteness of the events does not exempt them from the requirements 
of honesty, capacity and contemporaneity in the writer, but we must not expect 
the same amount of evidence or proof in respect of the records of antiquity 
that we do in respect of the history of modern times. 

It is reasonable to attach a higher value to the testimony handed down 
from generation to generation in ancient times than to that of our own days, 
in respect of which a more rigorous demand for documentary evidence may 
be pressed. 

According to the text of the Old Testament, Adam was for 243 years 
contemporary with Methuselah. Methuselah for 98 years was contemporary 
with Shem, and Shem for 150 years was contemporary with Abraham. The 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



57 



period from Adam to Abraham is bridged over by a chain of evidence or 
testimony containing only two intermediate links. This may be compared 
with the testimony preserved by tradition from the time of a man's great- 
grandfather, through his grandfather and his father to his own generation. 

The time of Abraham was an age of advanced civilization. The men of his 
day lived in a world that teemed with schools and libraries and books. The 
state of education in the age of Abraham, says Professor A. H. Sayce, was 
quite equal to that of the common people in our own country in the middle of 
last Century. The period of written or documentary evidence dates from before 
the time of Abraham. The family records were doubtless kept and handed 
down from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to Joseph, whose " coffin," that is 
ark or chest (Gen. 50 26 , cp. Ex. 40 20 , 2 Chron. 24 11 , where the same word 
is thus translated) may well have contained other relics and heirlooms beside 
the bones of Joseph. 

In a conversation with a friend, the present writer, in claiming authen- 
ticity for the chronological records of the early chapters of Genesis, was met 
by the objection — " At any rate there were no Registrars of Births and 
Deaths in those days," to which he replied, "That is just exactly what the 
fifth chapter of Genesis is." It might have been copied from the fly leaf 
of an old Patriarchal family Bible, or genealogical family chart. The family 
records that are preserved in these days are little else but records of births, 
marriages and deaths, but they go back farther than any other records in 
the family chest. 

Moses was the literary executor of Joseph, and the custodian of the heir- 
looms of antiquity preserved by the chosen race. He was an authentic 
reporter of evidence, and the Book of Genesis bears indications of being an 
original work, incorporating other authentic writings older than itself. 
From the Exodus to the end of the Old Testament history, which reaches 
its conclusion in the Books of Nehemiah and Malachi, all the writers were 
either original witnesses of the events to which their testimony is borne, or 
else they obtained their facts from authentic contemporary records. 

The fact that all the writers of the Old Testament were aided by Divine 
Inspiration gives a double sanction, and a supernatural authority to their 
writings. As mere human witnesses, and altogether apart from Divine 
Inspiration, their evidence would be valid for the periods on which they 
wrote. 

The testimony they bear is one and undivided, it is continuous and 
uninterrupted from the Patriarchal period to the Theocratic ; from that to 
the Monarchic, the period of the Captivity, the Return, the Scribes, the 
Talmudists, and the Massoretes, the writings of the Old Testament have 
been handed down in one continuous, unbroken line of succession, until the 
time of their publication in the printed Hebrew Bibles of the present day. 
They are therefore worthy of acceptance as the work of honest, capable and 
contemporary witnesses, whose testimony has been faithfully preserved, and 
•duly accredited to each succeeding generation, right down to, and including, 
our own. 



58 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



Chapter III. Canons of Credibility. 

The Hebrew Records of the Old Testament possess, from the very earliest 
times, a definite historical character, in marked contrast with those of other 
nations. The antiquities of the Greeks are full of poetic fictions. They 
wrote nothing in prose till after the conquest of Asia by Cyrus. " Their 
own times," says Sir Isaac Newton, in his Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms 
Amended, " were divided into three parts. Those before the Flood of 
Ogyges they called ' Unknown,' because they had no history of them. Those 
between the Flood of Ogyges and the ist Olympiad they called ' Fabulous,' 
because it was full of fables. Those subsequent to the ist Olympiad, B.C. 776, 
they called historical, but they had no Chronology of the times preceding 
the Persian Empire," except in so far as they subsequently constructed one 
by means of inference and conjecture. The antiquities of all other nations 
are likewise lost in the mists of early legend, myth and fable. The religious 
systems of Greece and Rome, Egypt and India, Persia and other nations 
of the East, did not even postulate a historical basis. The farther back we 
trace their past history, the more obscure and uncertain it becomes. 

With the Hebrew Records the case is quite different. The history of 
the race begins with an epoch which is quite definite, and the record of the 
first 2369 years, the period covered by the Book of Genesis, is stated with 
such minute accuracy and precision, that for those who accept the Hebrew 
Text there is no possible alternative to that of Ussher, as shown in the margin 
of the Authorised Version of our English Bibles. The chronological record 
is accurately continued, and may be definitely traced through the succeeding 
Centuries. It is only when we reach the latest records of Ezra and Nehemiah 
that chronological difficulties become acute, and only after the close of the 
Canon that the count of the years is altogether lost. 

The annals of the Hebrew nation are authentic narratives by contemporary 
writers. The Biblical Record is the Record of the redeeming activity 
of God. This Record is embedded in a human history, but it is a miraculous 
history throughout. 

It is not only a history of the external events of the life of men. In its 
primary significance it is a history of God, and of His activity within the 
realm of human history. Hence, none but men informed by the Spirit 
of God could write it, and only by faith in the truth of the Revelation can 
we ever hope to be able to understand it. The essence of Revelation is 
redemption, and redemption is a deed of God, done, as it were, within the 
veil, yet manifesting itself to us in the Revelation given in Holy Scripture, 
as a Divine movement in human history. 

We trace the history in one unbroken line, from the Creation of Adam 
to the Crucifixion. Bible Chronology is an exact science. It is not built 
upon hypothesis and conjecture. It rests ultimately upon evidence, or 
testimony, but it does occasionally require the use of the method of scientific 
historic induction. 

The historical character of the Old Testament has been vigorously 
assailed, from the rise of historical criticism, which owed its origin to that 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 59 



great master spirit, Niebuhr, down to the present day ; but the supposed 
parallelism between the early records of other nations, with their prodigies, 
and miracles, and Divine appearances, their myths and legends, and fictitious 
personages, does not really exist. Accurate historical investigation establishes 
the authenticity of the facts, and the reality of the persons presented to us 
in the writings of the Old Testament, so far as these can be tested 
by the application of the laws of history or the Canons of historic 
Truth. 

These Canons are of universal applicability. They are aptly formulated 
by George Rawlinson in his Bampton Lecture for 1859, on " The Historical 
Evidences of the Truth of Scripture Records." They may be briefly 
summarized as follows : — 

Canon I. When the record which we possess of an event is the 
writing of a contemporary, supposing that he is a credible witness, and 
had means of observing the fact to which he testifies, the fact is to be 
accepted as possessing the first, or highest degree of credibility. Such 
evidence is on a par with that of witnesses in a Court of Justice. 

Canon II. When the event recorded is one which the writer may 
reasonably be supposed to have obtained directly from those who witnessed 
it, we should accept it as probably true, unless it be in itself very 
improbable. Such evidence possesses the second degree of historical 
credibility. 

Canon III. When the event recorded is removed considerably from 
the age of the recorder of it, and there is no reason to believe that he 
obtained it from a contemporary writing, but the probable source of 
his information was oral tradition ; still, if the event be one of great 
importance, and of public notoriety, if it affected the national life, 
or prosperity — especially if it be of a nature to have been at once 
commemorated by the establishment of any rite or practice — then it 
has a claim to belief as probably true, at least in its general outline. 
This, however, is the third, and a comparatively low degree of historical 
credibility. 

Canon IV. When the traditions of one race are corroborated by the 
traditions of another . . . the event which has this double testimony, 
obtains thereby a high amount of probability, and, if not very unlikely 
in itself, thoroughly deserves acceptance. 

Canon V. Direct records, such as those which proceed from the 
agents in the occurrences, public inscribed Monuments such as have 
frequently been set up by Governments and Kings, state papers, such 
as those contained in the Books of Ezra and Esther, autobiographies 
and memoirs, deserve the very highest degree of credit, and are the best 
and most authentic sources of history. 

Canon VI. Indirect records, embodying the result of personal enquiry 
and research, are to be placed on a much lower footing, and must be 
judged by the opportunity, the competency, and the veracity of their 
composers. 



6o 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



Canon VII. The cumulative evidence of two or more independent 
witnesses to the same event, increases the probability of the event, not 
in an arithmetical, but in a geometrical ratio. " At the mouth of two 
or three witnesses " the word to which such witness is borne is 
"established" (Deut. 19 15 .) 

Canon Rawlinson enters a caveat against the exaltation into a Canon 
of historical truth, of the false assumption now almost universally prevalent, 
of " the inviolability of the chain of finite causes, and the impossibility of 
miracles." Events are not self-caused, and self-sustained, possessing powers 
that lie beyond the control of the Divine Will, and working by their own 
inherent power of self-determination, or necessity. They take place either 
mediately, in obedience to the Laws of Nature, which are simply so many 
expressions of the will of God, or else immediately, as a result of the direct, 
immediate act of God, in which case they are described as miraculous, or 
supernatural. The sacred records themselves are the proof of the miraculous 
events contained in them. The principles of historical criticism do not force 
11s to reject them, but compel us to accept them as true. 

The same great and important truth is excellently expressed by H. F. 
Clinton in his great work Fasti Hellenici, in which he says : " The history 
of the Israelites is the history of miraculous interpositions. Their passage 
out of Egypt was miraculous. Their prosperous and adverse fortunes in 
that land, their servitudes, and their deliverances, their conquests and 
their captivities, were all miraculous. The entire history, from the call of 
Abraham to the building of the second Temple, was a series of miracles. It 
is so much the object of the sacred historians to describe these, that little 
else is recorded. The ordinary events and transactions, which constitute 
the civil history of other states, are either very briefly told, or omitted 
altogether ; the incidental mention of these facts being always subordinate to 
the main design registering the extraordinary manifestations of Divine power. 
For these reasons, the history of the Hebrews cannot be treated like the 
history of any other nation ; and he who should attempt to write their 
history, divesting it of its miraculous character, would find himself without 
materials. Conformably with this spirit, there are no historians in the Sacred 
Volume of the period in which miraculous intervention was withdrawn. 
After the declaration by the mouth of Malachi, that a messenger should be sent 
to prepare the way, the next event recorded by any inspired writer, is the 
birth of that messenger. But of the interval of 400 years between the 
promise and the completion, no account is given. And this period of more 
than 400 years between Malachi and the Baptist is properly the only portion 
in the whole long series of ages from the birth of Abraham to the Christian 
Era which is capable of being treated like the history of any other 
nation." 

And now, having defined the scope of the subject, and explained the true 
method of treatment to be employed in dealing with it, and the standpoint 
from which it ought to be viewed, or the standard by which our decisions 
with respect to it, ought to be governed, we are able to commence our own 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



61 



study of the Romance of Bible Chronology, claiming only on behalf of the 
Hebrew Text, this one great primary element of common justice, the right 
to be heard, without being struck on the mouth, or shut out of court, or 
" emended " or " corrected," or otherwise inhibited by fallible witnesses 
whose testimony has no more right to be regarded as valid than that of trie 
Hebrew Text of the Old Testament itself. 



PERIOD I. THE PATRIARCHS— Genesis. 



Chapter IV. The Ante-diluvian Patriarchs — From Adam to Noah. 

(an. hom. 1-1056.) 

The opening verse of Genesis speaks of the Creation of the heavens, and the 
earth, in the undefined beginning. From this point we may date the origin 
of the world, but not the origin of man. For the second verse tells of a 
catastrophe — the earth became a ruin, and a desolation. The Hebrew verb 
J"Vn (hayah = to be) here translated was, signifies not only " to be " but 
also " to become," " to take place," " to come to pass." When a Hebrew 
writer makes a simple affirmation, or merely predicates the existence of 
anything, the verb T\\T] is never expressed. Where it is expressed it must 
always be translated by our verb to become, never by the verb to be, if we 
desire to convey the exact shade of the meaning of the Original. The words 
)T\y[ (tohu va-bohxi), translated in the A.V. " without form and void " 
and in the R.V. " waste and void " should be rendered tohu, a ruin, and bohu, 
a desolation. They do not represent the state of the heavens and the earth 
as they were created by God. They represent only the state of the earth 
as it afterwards became — •" a ruin and a desolation." This interpretation 
is confirmed by the words of Isaiah 45 18 , " He created it not tohu (a ruin) : 
He formed it to be inhabited (habitable, not desolate)." This excludes the 
rendering of Gen. 1 2 in the A.V. and the R.V. as decisively as the Hebrew of 
Gen. 1 2 requires the rendering of hay ah by the word " became " instead of 
the word " was," or better still " had become," the separation of the Vav 
from the verb being the Hebrew method of indicating the pluperfect tense. 

The noble Cathedral, once a perfect work of art, with its crowds of devout 
worshippers, becomes, with the lapse of ages, a dilapidated ruin. Forsaken 
by those who once frequented its hallowed courts, it becomes a desolation. 
Similarly the words of Gen. 1 2 , "And the earth became without form and 
void " are intended to convey to us the fact that the cosmos, once a beautiful 
and perfect whole, became a " ruin " and a " desolation." What the cause 
of this catastrophe was, we are not told, though some speculative interpreters 
have connected it with the fall of Satan. We know neither the cause, nor 
the time, nor the manner in which the calamitous change took place. There 
is no point of contact between the Hebrew tohu "ruin" and the Greek con- 
ception of chaos, the primeval, shapeless, raw material out of which the world 
was formed. Genesis 1 2 does not describe a stage in the process of the creation, 
but a disaster which befell the created earth ; the original creation of the 
heavens, and the earth, is chronicled in Gen. I 1 . The next verse, Gen. 1 2 , 

62 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 63 



is a statement of the disorder, the ruin, and the state of desolation into which 
the earth subsequently fell. What follows in Gen. i 3 * 31 is the story of the 
restoration of a lost order by the creative word of God. Between the creation 
of the heavens and the earth " in the beginning " (Gen. 1 x ) and the 
catastrophe by which they became a "ruin" and a "desolation" (Gen.i 2 ) 
we place those countless ages required by the geologist for the formation 
of the various strata of the earth's crust, and the fossil remains embedded 
therein. 

The length of time described by the Hebrew word Yom = day, as used in 
this chapter, cannot be definitely determined. The word itself is frequently 
used to express a long period, an entire Era. The time occupied by the whole 
process of the six days' work is referred to in Genesis 2 4 as " the day that the 
Lord God made the heavens and the earth." The use of the expression 
" and evening came and morning came — day one " (Gen. 1 5 ; repeated 
Gen. 1 8. 13. 19. 2 3.31) seems to suggest a literal day as measured by the 
revolution of the earth on its axis, but it cannot be said to be proved that 
the writer is not here using the words " evening and morning " in a figurative 
sense, for the commencement and the completion of whatever period 
he intended to mark by his use of the word " day." In the same verse 
{Gen. i 5 ) the word " day" is used to mark a still briefer period, viz. that 
portion of the day when it is light. 

The attempt to parcel out the six days' work into the six geological Eras, 
to which they somewhat roughly, but by no means accurately correspond, 
cannot be regarded as a satisfactory explanation of the writer's intention 
and meaning. There may be certain analogies between the order of Creation 
as described in the first chapter of Genesis, and the order of the formation 
of the various strata of the crust of the earth as read by the geologist, and 
in the order of the occurrence of the fossil remains which are found embedded 
in the stratified layers of the earth's crust, for God's works are all of a piece ; 
but there are also great and manifest divergencies, and these are so great, 
and so manifest that the two series cannot be said to run absolutely parallel 
with each other, or to perfectly correspond. The natural interpretation 
of the narrative, to one who recognizes the greatness of the power of God, 
is that which understands the chapter as a record of the creation of the world 
in six literal days ; but it cannot be denied that the word " day " may have 
been used by the writer in a figurative sense, and intended by him to indicate 
a more extended period corresponding to a geological Era of time. 

The creation of Adam took place on the sixth day after the creation of 
light. Whether this sixth day is to be interpreted as the sixth literal day, 
as measured by the space of time required for the revolution of the earth 
upon its own axis, or as a sixth geological Era, must remain uncertain, as there 
is nothing in the Hebrew Text to decide between the more precise and the 
more extended connotation of the term. 

Similarly the question discussed by Ussher in his Annals of the Old and 
New Testaments, by Kennedy in his New Method of Scripture Chronology, 
by R. G. Faussett in his Symmetry of Time, and many other writers, as to 
the exact month, day and hour at which the first year of the life of Adam 



6 4 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



began, whether at the autumnal or at the vernal Equinox, cannot be 
decisively determined. 

The following considerations make it appear probable that the original 
point of departure for the year was the autumnal Equinox, and that this 
was changed at the Exodus by Divine command, to the vernal Equinox, 
at all events, as far as the Hebrew people were concerned, whilst other nations 
may have continued to reckon their New Year's Day from the autumnal 
Equinox, or may have invented Eras of their own. We know that the later 
Jews Hellenized thev' calendar, introducing the principle of intercalation, 
and using the Greek Metonic cycle of 19 years for this purpose, instead of 
adhering to the Mosaic principle of direct observation, and eschewing 
astronomical calculations altogether. 

(1) The order of the " evening and the morning " which formed the first 
day suggests by analogy the propriety of making the year also commence 
in the autumn. 

(2) The autumnal season of harvest, when the fruits of the earth were 
ripe, seems to be the most appropriate time of the year for the appearance 
of man on the earth which had been specially prepared for him. 

(3) The change of " the first month of the year" to Abib or Nisan occurring 
at the spring of the year (Exodus 12 2 , 13 4 , Deut. 16 1 ) suggests that up 
to that time the first month of the year was the month which followed 
immediately upon the Autumnal Equinox. This fixing of Abib or Nisan 
as the first month of the year may, however, have been a return to the original 
mode of reckoning from the Creation and a rejection of the Egyptian method 
of reckoning by the Vague calendar year of exactly 365 days. 

But it is not till we reach the fifth chapter of Genesis that we meet with 
our first definite chronological datum, and here we find a complete list of 
the ante-diluvian patriarchs. The list is as follows. We adopt the term 
Anno Hominis rather than Anno Mundi, for, as we have seen, the world was 
created " in the beginning." This was ages before the creation of Adam, 
the true starting point of every Chronology. Usshers date, B.C. 4004, should 
be removed from Gen. 1 \ and placed at Gen. 1 26 , or Gen. 5 \ 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



65 



The Ante-diluvian Patriarchs : From the Creation to the Flood. 

ANNO HOMINIS. 

o. Adam created (Gen. 5 1 ). 
130. Age of Adam at birth of Seth (Gen. 5 3 ). 
130. Seth born. 

105. Add age of Seth at birth of Enos (Gen. 5 6 ). 

235. Enos born. 

90. Add age of Enos at birth of Cainan (Gen. 5 9 ). 
325. Cainan born. 

70. Add age of Cainan at birth of Mahalaleel (Gen. 5 12 ). 
395. Mahalaleel born. 

65. Add age of Mahalaleel at birth of Jared (Gen. 5 15 ). 
460. Jared born. 

162. Add age of Jared at birth of Enoch (Gen. 5 18 ). 
622. Enoch born. 

65. Add age of Enoch at birth of Methuselah (Gen. 5 21 ). 
687. Methuselah born. 

187. Add age of Methuselah at birth of Lamech (Gen. 5 25 ). 
874. Lamech born. 

182. Add age of Lamech at birth of Noah (Gen. 5 28 ). 
1056. Noah born. 
600. Add age of Noah at the Flood (Gen. y 6 ). 
an. hom. 1656. The Flood. 

The design of this genealogical list is to give a Chronology of the period 
from Adam to the Flood. The line chosen is the line of Noah the preserver 
of the race, the line of the promised Messiah the Redeemer of the race. It 
must not be assumed that the son named in each generation is either always 
or generally the eldest son of his father. This is not stated, it is not 
suggested, it is not implied. Certainly Seth is not the eldest son of Adam, 
nor is Shem the eldest son of Noah, though he is mentioned in this list (Gen. 5 3 2 ) 
before his eldest brother Japheth (Gen. 10 21 ). Moses selects from the 
genealogical family records only those entries which relate to the chosen 
people, and those other races who are brought into contact with them in the 
course of their later history. The line of Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob 
is selected because to them was given the promise of the " Seed," in whom 
all the nations of the earth are to be blessed. The theme of the Old 
Testament is the Redeemer. All its selections are governed, and all its 
omissions are explained, by this fact. 

That the interest of the recorder of these Tables was chronological, may 
be inferred from the careful attention which he has paid to the subject of 
Chronology, and the very precise nature, and chronological form of the 
statements made respecting the ages of each of the Patriarchs. It may also 
be inferred from the fact that though he gives the descendants of the line 
of Cain, he attaches no Chronology to that line ; his chronological purpose 

E 



66 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



is served if the succession of events is accurately and fully recorded along 
the one line of succession which he adopts as his chronological Era. 

u-The number of the years of the life of each of the Patriarchs is mentioned, 
in addition to the years before and after the birth of the son named, probably 
in order to show by this double statement that however extraordinary the 
length of the life of the Patriarch, there is no mistake about the accuracy 
of the figures. There is no reason to doubt the fact that our first fathers 
were endowed with a better physical frame, which enabled them to live 
a longer life than the men of the present day. The attempt to interpret 
the names of these men as the eponymous names of tribes or dynasties, or 
to give the word " year " a different signification from that which it 
ordinarily bears, or to discount the narrative as mythical, and the personages 
named in it as fictitious, is a fallacy induced by a presumed, but false analogy 
between the Biblical narrative and the legendary accounts of the origins 
of other nations, or by the gratuitous assumption that as things are to-day, 
so they always have been, and always will be. We have the same authority 
for believing that Adam was 930 when he died, that we have for believing 
that Joseph was 30 when he stood before Pharoah, and no when he died. 

The narrative nowhere states, and it must not be understood to imply, 
that each succeeding Patriarch was born on the very day on which his father 
attained the age named at his hirth. As the purpose of the list is chronological, 
it must be interpreted to mean that the fractions of a year which are not 
mentioned are included in the age of the father. Moses intended his 
calculations to be both accurate and complete. He reckons by complete 
years, and gives the whole of the year in which the son is born to the age of 
the father at his son's birth. This is proved by the two instances of 
Methuselah and Noah. Methuselah's age at death is stated to .have been 969 
years (Gen. 5 27 ) but he was only 968 years, 1 month and 17 days old, plus 
whatever fraction of the year of his birth was included in the 65th year of 
his father Enoch, when the Flood began. Noah's age when the Flood was 
upon the earth is given as 600 years (Gen. j 6 ), but it was only on the 17th 
day of the 2nd month of his 600th year that the fountains of the deep 
were broken up (Gen. 7 11 ). These statements are given by Moses in order 
to explain the technical principles on which the Chronology is built. Those 
who make them into " discrepancies " are self-convicted, (1) of an error 
of interpretation, and (2) of attributing to the author the mistake which has 
been made by themselves. 

Moses' tables of the Patriarchs, like Ptolemy's Canon of Kings, are con- 
structed on astronomical principles. The numbers taken collectively constitute 
an uninterrupted series of true, tropical solar years, and register with astro- 
nomic accuracy the number of solar revolutions from the creation of Adam 
to the death of Joseph, which no Chronologer who accepts the statements of 
the Hebrew Text can make either one year more, or one year less, than 2369. 
Adam lived 930 years. The first year of his life runs parallel with the year 
Anno Hominis 1. The year in which he died runs parallel with an. hom. 930. 
Seth was born in the 130th year of Adam's life, the year ax. hom. 130. It is 
not suggested that the Patriarchs were all born at the autumnal Equinox, or 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



67 



all on the same day of the same month of the year. The years are integral, 
and take no account of fractions. The year of Seth's birth is reckoned to 
Adam. The_ij^t_year of Adam's life, the year an. hom. 131, is reckoned as 
the 1st year of the life of Seth. Hence, we may safely conclude that Moses' 
reckoning of years is inclusive, and Noah is said to be 600 years old at the 
beginning, and not at the end of his 600th year. 

The numbers given in this genealogical list are characterized by the 
strictest regard for accuracy and precision. This is confirmed by the fact 
that since Ussher, no Chronologer who has adopted the numbers given in 
the Hebrew Text as the basis of his calculation, has ever failed to fix the Flood 
in the year an. hom. 1656, and the death of Joseph in the year an. hom. 2369. 



Chapter V. The Noah-Shem Connection. 

(Noah's age at the birth of Shem = 502 years). 

f an. hom. 1056-1558. 

The early Chronology of the Hebrew Scriptures is contained in a series of 
connected statements, each covering a definite period. Between each of 
these definite periods is an apparent chasm, or want of connection. A closer 
and more attentive study reveals the fact that the connecting link between 
the several periods is always supplied, but it has to be diligently sought for. 
The five apparent chasms at which the continuity of the chronological record 
appears to be broken off are as follows : — 

1. The Noah-Shem connection, which determines the exact age of 
Noah at the birth of Shem, viz. 502 years. 

2. The Terah- Abraham connection, which determines the exact age 
of Terah at the birth of Abraham, viz. 130 years. 

3. The Joseph-Moses connection, which determines the exact 
number of years which elapsed between the death of Joseph, with which 
the Chronology of the book of Genesis ends (Gen. 50 26 ), and the birth 
of Moses, with which the Chronology of the book of Exodus begins 
(Exodus 7 7 ), viz. 64 years. 

4. The Joshua-Judges connection, which determines the number 
of years that elapsed during the administration of Joshua and the Elders 
that overlived him, between the division of the land at the end of the 
Seven Years' War of Conquest, with which the Chronology of the Book 
of Joshua ends (Joshua 14 7 - 10 with Numbers io 11 - 12 , 13 17 - 20 ), and the 
oppression of Cushan-Rishathaim of Mesopotamia, with which the 
Chronology of the Book of Judges begins (Judges 3 8 ), viz. 13 years. 

5. The Eli-Saul connection, which determines the number of years 
that elapsed between the death of Eli and the beginning of the reign 
of Saul, viz. 20 years. This is given in the summary of 1 Samuel 7 2 . 



68 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



These breaks in the consecutive statements of the Chronology are made 
good in various ways. The discussion of them will occupy five separate 
chapters of this work. They form a series of chronological problems of 
increasing difficulty, but it will always be found, on closer inspection, that 
the materials for forming an exact Chronology are always given, so that we 
are never left to hypothesis or conjecture, and never have to fall back upon 
the statements of Josephus or other external testimony. 

In this chapter we have to deal with the Noah-Shem connection, i.e. to 
ascertain the age of Noah at the birth of Shem. The problem is solved by 
the inclusion of an intermediate date, the epoch of the Flood, from which 
we reckon back to the birth of Noah, and on to the age of Shem at the birth 
of his son Arphaxad. 

The two statements contained in Genesis 5 32 , " And Noah was 500 years 
old : and Noah begat Shem, Ham and Japhet," do not give us any clue 
to the exact age of Noah at the birth of Shem. Shem is mentioned first, 
because he is the member of the family with whom the writer is mainly 
concerned. 

The Old Testament is a narrative of the story of Redemption. Redemption 
is through the Messiah, Who is to come through a particular line of descent. 
He is progressively defined as the "seed of the woman" (Gen. 3 15 ), the 
"seed of Abraham" (Gen. 22 18 ), "the seed of Isaac" (Gen. 26 4 ) "the seed 
of Jacob" (Gen. 28 14 ), "the Shiloh of the Tribe of Judah " (Gen. 49 10 ) and 
"the seed of the House of David" (2 Sam. 7 12 " 16 ). 

References to other families and other races are summary, and incidental. 
The grajad theme of the whole of the Old Testament Scriptures is the coming 
of the Redeemer, and the things concerning the race from which He springs. 
References to other races are introduced only in so far as they bear upon 
the main theme of the Old Testament Scriptures as a whole. 

This explains why Shem is mentioned first amongst the sons of Noah. 
He was not the eldest son, for in Genesis 10 21 (a text misrendered in the 
R.V. but correctly translated in the A.V.), Japheth is distinctly described as 
his elder brother. In the same way, and for the same reason, Abram is 
mentioned before his elder brothers, Nahor and Haran, in Genesis 11 26 , 
" And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor and Haran." 
Similarly Issac is placed before Ishmael in 1 Chron. I 28 , "The sons of 
Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael," though Isaac was not the older, but the younger 
of the two. 

I We arrive at the age of Noah at the birth of Shem by means of an induction 
from the facts contained in Genesis 7 6 and Genesis 11 10 . From Genesis 7 6 
we learn that Noah was 600 years old at the epoch of the Flood. From Genesis 
11 10 we learn that Shem was 100 years old, two years after the Flood. 
Therefore Shem was 98 years old at the Flood, that is Shem was 98 years 
old when Noah was 600. Therefore Shem was born when Noah was 502. 
This enables us to connect the Chronology of the ante-diluvian Patriarchs 
with the Chronology of the post-diluvian Patriarchs, and we may proceed 
in either of two ways. We may use the intermediate date of the Flood, 
or we may use the age of Noah at the birth of Shem, at which we have arrived 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 69 

by means of a mathematical deduction from the statements of the Hebrew 
narrative. 

The Noah-Shem Connection. 
First Method. 

AN. HOM. 

1056. Noah born (see Chapter 4). 

502. Add age of Noah at birth of Shem (Gen. 7 6 with n 10 ). 
1558. Shem born. 
100. Add age of Shem at birth of Arphaxad (Gen. 7 6 with 11 10 ). 

1658. Arphaxad born. 



Second Method. 

AN. HOM. 

1056. Noah born (see Chapter 4). 
600. Add age of Noah at the Flood (Gen. 7 6 ). 
1656. Date of the Flood. 

2. Add years after the Flood when Arphaxad was born (Gen 11 10 ). 
1658. Arphaxad born. 



The date of the Flood is treated as an epoch in the same way as the birth 
of one of the Patriarchs. It began on the 17th day of the 2nd month of the 
600th year of Noah's age. Noah remained in the Ark for one whole yearj 
of exactly 365 days. But the expression " two years after the flood " in 
Gen. 11 10 is not to be interpreted as meaning two years after the flood was 
over. The flood is treated as an epoch or point of time from which the 
Chronology is continued in the same manner as from the birth of one of the 
Patriarchs. 

The Chronology of the Flood year throws an interesting light upon the 
primitive Hebrew calendar. The commencement of the Flood is dated the 
17th day of the 2nd month of the 600th year of Noah's life (Gen. 7 11 ). 
The Ark rested on the 17th day of the 7th month (Gen. 8 4 ). The interval 
of five months between these two dates is described as an interval of 150 
days, each of these five months consisting of 30 days. The Hebrews always 
reckoned 30 days to the month, except when they saw the New Moon on the 
30th, which then became the 1st day of the new month. Moses may have 
followed this usage here. But Kennedy interprets him as reckoning 30 days 
to each of the first 11 months, and 24 days, or where necessary 25 days to 
the 12th month. Kennedy's account of the Flood year is as follows. The 
waters decreased continually till the 1st day of the 10th month, an interval 
embracing the remaining 14 days of the 7th month, and the two following 
months, or 74 days. The waters were dried up on the 1st day of the 1st 
month of the 601st year, after a further interval of 95 days, comprising a 
tenth month of 30 days, an eleventh month of 30 days, and a twelfth month 



70 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



of 24 days, making altogether 84 days to complete the twelve months of the 
lunar year, and a further 11 days to the eleventh day of the 1st month of the 
new lunar year to complete the 365 days of the solar year, the 600th year of 
Noah's life. 

At this time Noah "removed the covering of the ark and looked, and 
behold the face of the ground was dry." Nevertheless he remained in the 
ark until the 27th day of the 2nd month of the new lunar year, a further 
interval of 46 days, comprising the remaining 19 days of the 1st month, and 
the 27 days of the second month of the new lunar year, when at the command 
of God he went forth out of the ark in which he had remained exactly 
365 days. 

From these particulars Kennedy concludes that in the primitive Hebrew 
calendar time is measured by the solar year of 365 days, but computed in terms 
of the lunar year of twelve months, viz. eleven months of 30 days, and a 
twelfth month of 24 days, when the lunar year or the 12 revolutions of the 
moon occupy 354 days, and 25 days when the lunar year or the 12 revolutions 
of the moon occupy 355 days. The facts as viewed by Kennedy may be 
graphically represented as follows : — 



DIAGRAM OF THE FLOOD YEAR 

ACCORDING TO 

John Kennedy's New Method of Scripture Chronology. 



599th 
Year of 
the Life 
of Noah. 

AN. HOM. 

1655- 



600th 
Year of the 
Life of Noah. 
an. hom. 1656. 



Noah 


Forty 


Ark 


Peaks 


R D D 


D ARK 


Noah 


enter- 


days 


rested 


seen 


A O O 


O UN- 


went 


ed 


rain 


on 


on 


V V V 


v cov- 


forth 


Ark 


ceased 


the 


the 


E E E 


E ER- 


out of 


17th 


26th 


17th 


1st 


N I II 


III ED 


Ark 


day 


day 


day 


day 


II. 18.25. 


2. I 


27th 


2nd 


3rd 


7th 


10th 


d. d. d. 


d. day 


day 


month 


month 


month 


month 


I 1. 1 I.I I. 


12. 1 


2nd 










m. m. m. 


m. mo. 


month 












• 601 














• YR. 





601st 
year of 
the Life 
of Noah. 

AN. HOM. 

1657. 



WATERS PREVAILED 
I50 



WATERS 
DECREASED 
74 



IO II 12 

TO END OF 
LUNAR YEAR 
84 



46 



Y 

308 



354 days of Lunar Year 



365 days of Solar Year, 1656 



TO 

No- 
ah's 

EXIT 



46 



(I) 



365 days that Noah was in the Ark. 



(a)(3) 



(4) 



(1) Beginning of the Solar Year an. hom. 1656, which this year coincides 

with the Lunar Year. 

(2) End of the Lunar Year of 354 days. 

(3) End of the Solar Year of 365 days. 

(4) End of the 365 days that Noah was in the Ark. 



7i 



72 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



The Biblical year is the luni-solar year. Time is measured by the 
revolutions of the sun. The feasts are regulated by the revolutions of the 
moon, and the relations between the solar year are adjusted, not by 
astronomical calculation, but by observation of the state of the crops, and 
the appearances of the moon. The resulting system was perfect and self- 
adjusting. It required neither periodic correction nor intercalation. 

According to Kennedy, Moses measures time by the years of the sun. He 
computes time by the months and days of the years of the moon, which are 
pinned down to the years of the sun. From the 17th day of the 2nd month of 
one lunar year to the 27th day of the 2nd month of the following lunar year 
is a period of 354+11 = 365 days, viz. one complete lunar year and eleven 
additional days. These 365 days will invariably consist either of parts of 
two distinct lunar years, or else of one complete lunar year and part of another. 
When the last day of the lunar year is also the last day of the concurrent 
solar year we have what is called a year of commensuration. Such a year 
was the year an. hom. 1655, the 599th year of Noah's life, the year before 
the Flood. 

When the 1st day of the lunar year is also the 1st day of the concurrent 
solar year, we have what is called a year of coincidence. Such a year was the 
year an. hom. 1656, the 600th year of Noah's life. The Flood year occupied 
319 days of the solar year 1656, and 46 days of the solar year 1657, the year 
after the Flood. It also occupied 308 days of the lunar year concurrent 
with the solar year 1656, and 57 days of the lunar year concurrent with the 
solar year 1657. A year of commensuration is always followed by a year 
of coincidence. 

The sun was appointed for the measurement of time or years. The moon 
for the regulation and determination of the periodic returns of the "seasons," 
i.e. the set feasts and solemn assemblies (Gen. i 14 , Psa. 104 19 ). 

The Mosaic Shanah (a word which like Mishna signifies repetition) 
invariably denotes a true, tropical solar year containing all the four seasons, 
and always returning to the same point in the ecliptic. These feasts were 
pinned down to the solar year, but they were computed and regulated by the 
months and days of the year of the moon. The first month was the month 
whose full moon either fell upon or followed next after the beginning of the 
solar year, Tekuphath hasshanah=the return of the year (Ex. 34 2 2 , 1 Sam. 
1 20 margin, 2 Chron. 24 s3 margin, Psalm 19 6 .) 

From the Creation to the Exodus this "beginning of the year " was fixed 
at the autumnal Equinox in the month Tisri, but from the Exodus onward it 
was transferred by Divine command to the vernal Equinox, and to the month 
Abib, which was henceforth to be " the beginning of months, the first month 
of the year " (Ex. 12 2 , 13 4 ). So far Kennedy. 

Sir Isaac Newton's account of the Hebrew calendar differs somewhat 
from Kennedy's. "All nations," he says in his Chronology of Ancient King- 
doms Amended, " before the just length of the solar year was known, 
reckoned months by the course of the moon, and years by the rot urn of winter 
and summer, spring and autumn (Gen. i 14 , 8 22 ; Censorinus, c. 19 and 20 ; 
Cicero in Verrem, Geminus, c. 6), and in making calendars for their festivals 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 73 



they reckoned 30 days to a lunar month, taking the nearest round numbers, 
whence came the division of the eclipitic into 360 degrees. So in the time 
of Noah's Flood when the moon could not be seen, Noah reckoned 30 days 
to a month, but if the moon appeared a day or two before the month, they 
began the next month with the first day of her appearing. That the Israelites 
used the luni-solar year is beyond question. Their months began with the 
new moons. Their first month was called Abib, from the earing of corn in 
that month. Their Passover was kept from the 14th day of the first month, 
the moon being then in the full. And if the corn was not then ripe enough 
for offering the first fruits, the festival was put off by adding an intercalary 
month to the end of the year, and the harvest was got in before Pentecost, 
and the other fruits gathered before the feast of the seventh month." 

This intercalation is nowhere provided for in the Mosaic law, nor is it 
ever mentioned or referred to in the whole of the Old Testament. Never- 
theless it undoubtedly follows as a necessary consequence of the system. 
For the revolution of the sun is completed in 365.242242 days, and that of 
the moon in 29.530588 days, so that 12 moons fill the space of only 354 or 
355 of the 365 days in the year. The added month did not come into the 
•calendar. We ourselves never speak of intercalating a 53rd week in our year. 

Chapter VI. Comparative Chronology. Adam to Noah. 

In calculating the Chronology of the ante-diluvian Patriarchs, the numbers 
used in Scripture are our only guide. The figures given above are those 
•of the Massoretic Hebrew Text of the Old Testament. 

Other numbers are given in the Septuagint Greek Text, and yet others 
again in the Samaritan Pentateuch, the sum of the numbers in the LXX. 
oeing 606 years longer, and the sum of the numbers in the Samaritan Version 
349 years shorter, than those of the Hebrew Text. That the variations 
are due to contrivance or design, and not to accident, is plain from the 
systematic way in which the alterations have been made, the only question 
that arises is as to which of the three versions is the authentic original, and 
which the modified or concocted scheme. 

The figures are here placed side by side in order that they may be easily 
compared and judgment passed upon their rival claims to originality. 



74 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 

THE ANTE-DILUVIAN PATRIARCHS. 



Chronology of the Hebrew, Septuagint, and Samaritan Versions. 





Hebrew. 


Septuagint. 


Samaritan. 




Age 




Age 


Age 






at 




at 


at 






birth 




birth 


birth 






of Resi- 




of Resi- 


of Resi 






Son. due. Total. 


Son. due. Total. 


Son. due 


Total. 


Adam 


130 + 800 == 




■ 

230 + 700 = 930 


130 + 800 


= 930 


Seth 


105 + 807 — 


912 


205 + 707 = 912 


105 + 807 


= 912 


Enos 


90 + 815 = 


905 


190 + 715 = 905 


90 +815 


= 905 


Cainan . . 


70 + 840 = 


910 


170 + 740 = 910 


70 + 840 


= 910 


Mahalaleel 


65 + 830 = 


895 


165 + 730 = 895 


65 + 830 


= 895 


Jared 


162 + 800 = 


962 


162 + 800 — 962 


62 + 785 


= 847 


Enoch 


65 + 300 = 


365 


165 + 200 = 365 


65 4- 300 


= 365 


Methuselah 


187 + 782 — 


969 


1 167 + 802 l , 
1187 +782/ =969 


67 *+ 653 


= 720 


Lamech 


182 + 595 = 


777 


188 + 565 =753 


53 + 600 


= 653 


Noah (to the 












Flood) 


600 + 350 = 


950 


600 


600 




Total 


1656 




2242 


1307 










2262 







The following variations are found in the Early Church Fathers, Theophilus 
and Africanus, and in the writings of the Jewish historian, Josephus. 



THE ANTE-DILUVIAN PATRIARCHS. 



Chronology of Theophilus, Africanus, and Josephus. 



Age at Birth of Son. 


Theophilus. 


Africanus. 


Josephus. 


Adam 


230 


230 


230 


Seth 


205 


205 


205 


Enos 


190 


190 


190 


Cainan 


170 


170 


170 


Mahalaleel 


165 


165 


165 


Jared 


162 


162 


162 


Enoch 


165 


165 


165 


Methuselah 


167 


187 


187 


Lamech 


188 


188 


182 


Noah (to the Flood) . . 


600 


600 


600 


Total .. 


2242 


2262 


2256 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



75 



Theophilus agrees with the LXX. throughout, viz. with those copies which 
make the years of Methuselah at the birth of his son 167, and which are thus 
involved in the absurdity of making Methuselah survive the Flood by 14 
years. He is followed by Eusebius, Augustine and Syncellus. But Africanus 
and Josephus and likewise the Paschal Chronicle, Demetrius and Epiphanius, 
follow those copies of the LXX. which adopt the unaltered Hebrew figure 187. 

Theophilus and Africanus follow the LXX. in making the years of Lamech, 
at the birth of his son 188, whilst Josephus following the Hebrew Text gives 
the number as 182. 

A careful study of these figures discloses the fact that originality belongs 
to the Hebrew Chronology to which the Septuagint adds 606 years, but from 
which the Samaritan deducts 349 years. 

The main difference between the Hebrew and the LXX. consists in the 
addition of 100 years to the age of the six Patriarchs, Adam, Seth, Enos, 
Cainan, Mahalaleel and Enoch at the birth of their sons. This 100 years 
is carefully deducted from the residue so that the total remains the same 
in each case. 

Jared and Methuselah, being already advanced in age at the birth of their 
sons, are left unaltered. The case of Lamech is exceptional, six years are 
added to his age before the birth of his son, and thirty years are deducted 
from the residue, so that the total number of the years of his life is 24 less 
than the number given in the Hebrew. 

The alteration of the age of Lamech from 182 to 188 is accounted for as 
follows. Africanus starts like the LXX. with a total of 2262 years from Adam 
to the Flood. He looks to Peleg as the name in connection with which the 
millenary division of time is to occur, but he places the point of the division, 
or the epoch of the 3000th year from the date of the Creation, at the death 
of Peleg, not as Theophilus of Antioch does at the attainment of his 130th 
year. Like Theophilus, he omits the two years from the Flood to the birth 
of Arphaxad, a very common error which arises from the mistaken, but very 
general supposition, that Shem was Noah's eldest son, and was born when 
his father was 500, instead of when he was 502. The calculation then 
proceeds as follows : — 



The Millenary scheme of Africanus. 

Creation to the Flood . . . . . . . . . . . . 2262 

Arphaxad to the birth of his son . . . . . . . . 135 

Salah ,, ,, ,, . . . . . . . . 130 

Eber „ „ „ 134 

Peleg „ ,, . . 130 

Peleg, Residue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 



3000 

To make up this total, the first item must be 2262, that is Lamech's 182 
must be altered to 188. 

The majority of the Manuscripts of the LXX. give 167 as the age of 
Methuselah at the birth of his son, and this is confirmed by the Samaritan 



7 6 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



Pentateuch, which has 67 (always a Century less than the LXX. until we get 
to Lamech). But if Methuselah was 167 at the birth of Lamech, Lamech 
188 at the birth of Noah, and Noah 600 at the Flood, Methuselah would be 
955 at the date of the Flood, and since he lived to be 969, the LXX. is involved 
in the absurdity of making Methuselah survive the Flood by 14 years. To 
remedy this the alteration of the age of Methuselah at the birth of his son 
from 187 to 167 was retracted, and the number 187 was restored. 

The net effect of these alterations is to give the world an increased duration, 
and a more respectable antiquity. The men who made the LXX. Version 
were Jews living in Egypt, about 250 to 180 years before Christ. They 
were acquainted with the extravagant claims to antiquity put forward by 
the Egyptian priesthood. They desired to modernise their view of the 
antiquity of the origin of the race, and to bring it into closer accord with the 
views that prevailed in the up-to-date Schools of learning at Alexandria, 
and this they did by adding some 606 years to the Hebrew Chronology of the 
Patriarchs who lived before the Flood. The native Jews of Palestine cherished 
a deep and reverential regard for the very letter of Scripture, and would 
never dare to alter a single word. Josephus describes their veneration for 
their Sacred Books as being so great that, "notwithstanding the lapse of so 
many ages, no one had ever dared to add to, or to take from them, or to alter 
anything in them." He says that it was " innate in every Jew to regard 
them as the precepts of God, to abide by them, and if need be, cheerfully to 
die for them." 

The translators of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, had no such 
compunctions. They wished to make such a version as would commend 
the Hebrew Scriptures to the learned men of Alexandria, whose traditions 
laid claim to a remote antiquity by the side of which the Chronology of the 
Hebrew Scriptures seemed insignificant and contemptible. Hence they 
contrived to add 606 years to the Chronology of the period before the Flood, 
and to make a similar, but larger addition of 880 years to the Chronology 
of the period from the Flood to Abraham. The method and the motive of 
the alterations is perfectly clear. 

The irregularity of the Hebrew numbers considering the notorious 
uncertainty of human life, is a reason for accepting the Hebrew Text as the 
genuine Original, whilst the more regular succession of the numbers in the 
LXX. makes it more likely that the LXX. was contrived as an improvement 
on the Hebrew, than that the irregular Hebrew numbers were designedly 
fabricated as an improvement on the more regular numbers of the LXX. 

Chapter VII. Post-diluvian Patriarchs — From Shem to Abraham. 

(an. hom. 1558-2008). 

The Chronology of the Post-diluvian Patriarchs presents the same features 
as those already met with in dealing with the Ante-diluvian Patriarchs. 

The nth Chapter of Genesis supplies us with a list of Patriarchs in many 
respects similar to that which we have been studying in the 5th chapter. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



The most notable differences are, (i) the reduction in the length of the lives 
of the Patriarchs placed at the head of the list, to about one half of that of 
the Patriarchs who lived before the Flood, and (2) its further reduction to 
about one half of the new standard of longevity, when we reach the name 
of Peleg, which stands very nearly in the middle of the list. Both lists of 
Patriarchs, the Ante-diluvian List, from Adam to Noah, and the Post- 
diluvian List, from Shem to Abraham, contain the same number of names, 
there being exactly ten names in each case. In this list the writer gives the 
age of the Patriarch at the birth of his son, and the residue of his years there- 
after. The sum total of the years of the life of the Patriarch is not stated as it 
is in the case of the Ante-diluvian Patriarchs. 



Post-diluvian Patriarchs. 
From the Flood to the Birth of Abram. 

AN. HOM. 

1656. The Flood — Shem aged 98 (Gen. 11 10 ) (see Chapter 5). 
2. Add the years after the Flood when Arphaxad was born 
(Gen. 11 10 ) 
1658. Arphaxad born. Shem aged 100. 

35. Add age of Arphaxad at birth of Salah (Gen. 11 12 ). 
1693. Salah born. 

30. Add age of Salah at birth of Eber (Gen. 11 14 ). 
1723. Eber born. 

34. Add age of Eber at birth of Peleg (Gen. 11 16 ). 
1757. Peleg born. 

30. Add age of Peleg at birth of Reu (Gen. n 18 ). 
1787. Reu born. 

32. Add age of Reu at birth of Serug (Gen. 11 20 ). 
1819. Serug born. 

30. Add age of Serug at birth of Nahor (Abram's grandfather) 
(Gen. n 22 ). 
1849. Nahor, Abram's grandfather, born. 

29. Add age of Nahor at birth of Terah (Gen. 11 24 ). 
1878. Terah born. 
130. Add age of Terah at birth of Abram (Gen. 11 26, 32 , Gen .12 4 , 
Acts 7 4 ). 

2008. Abram born. 

The design of this genealogical list is to carry forward the Chronology 
from the date of the Flood to the birth of Abram. 



7 8 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



Chapter VIII. The Terah-Abraham Connection. 

Terah' s age at the birth of Abraham = 130 years. 

In Gen. 11 26 we read, " And Terah lived 70 years, and begat Abram, Nahor, 
and Haran." We have already seen, in the parallel case of Noah and his 
three sons, that though Shem was mentioned first, he was not the eldest son 
of Noah, and was not born till two years after his father was 500 years old, 
as stated in Gen 5 32 . 

We have now to show that in like manner, Abram, though mentioned 
first, was not the eldest son of Terah, and was not born till sixty years after 
his father was seventy years old, as stated in Gen. 11 2 6 . 

We begin with the result obtained in our last chapter, that Terah was 
born an. hom. 1878. From Gen. 11 32 we learn that Terah was 205 when he 
died. Therefore Terah died an. hom. 2083. From Acts 7 4 we learn that 
when Terah died Abram left Haran. 

The words of Stephen in Acts 7 make explicit what is implicit in Gen. 
11 27 — 12 5 . It is clear that there were two distinct calls given to Abram. 
In response to the first he left Ur of the Chaldees to go into the land of 
Canaan, but halted when he came to Haran, and dwelt there. In response 
to the second call he left Haran to go into the land of Canaan, " and into the 
land of Canaan they came." 

The rendering of this passage in the A.V. is faulty in two respects, (1) the 
insertion of the word " had " in the phrase " Now the Lord had said unto 
Abram " in Gen. 12 1 is inaccurate and misleading. There is nothing in the 
Hebrew Text to warrant it. It suggests to the reader that there was only 
one call instead of two. And (2) the division into chapters breaks the 
continuity of the narrative in which the connection between Gen. 11 32 and 
Gen. 12 1 is direct and immediate. It should read thus: — ■ 

" Terah died in Haran, and the Lord said unto Abram, Get thee out of 
thy country and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, into a 
land that I will show thee ... So Abram departed as the Lord had spoken 
unto him : and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed 
out of Haran." Gen. ii 32 -I2 4 . 

The consecutiveness of the narrative enables us to say that when Terah 
died at the age of 205, Abram left Haran at the age of 75, and came into 
the land of Canaan. But if Abram was 75 when Terah was 205, it follows 
that Abram was born when Terah was 130. We were, therefore, justified 
in adding, at the end of the list of the Post-diluvian Patriarchs the figures 
given in connection with the last name on the list, viz. that of Abram. 

AN. HOM. 

1878. Terah born (see Chapter 7). 
130. Add age of Terah at birth of Abram (Gen. ii 2 6-3 2 } ^ cts ^ 
Gen. 12 4 ). 
2008. Birth of Abram. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 79 



The lateness of Abram's birth in the life of his father explains how he 
could be only ten years older than his half-niece Sarah or Iscah (Gen. 11 2 9 ) 
and therefore of an age to marry her in spite of the fact that he belonged to 
a generation earlier than the generation to which she belonged. Sarah married 
her father Haran's much younger brother Abram. Similarly Milcah, Sarah's 
sister, married her father Haran's brother Nahor. Abram was probably 
Terah's son by a second wife. If so this would explain how Abram could 
say to Abimelech, She is the daughter (granddaughter) of my father Terah, 
but not the daughter (granddaughter) of my mother. Thus :— 



Terah. 



Haran, 



Nahor + Milcah. 



Iscah 

or 
Sarah 



+ Abram 



The credit of the discovery of the age of Terah at the birth of Abram 
is due to Archbishop Ussher. It is one of the principal improvements of 
his system, and a proof of the acuteness of his intelligence, and the keenness 
of his insight into the chronological bearing of the statements contained in 
the text of Holy Scripture. 



Chapter IX. Comparative Chronology — Shem to Abraham. 

The Table of the Post-diluvian Patriarchs, with their ages at the birth of their 
sons, and the number of years in the residue of their lives as given in the 
Hebrew Text, has been manipulated in the LXX. and in the Samaritan 
Pentateuch, in the same way that the Table of the Ante-diluvian Patriarchs 
was manipulated by them. 

The first of the following tables gives a comparative view of the Hebrew, 
LXX., and Samaritan figures for the age of each of the Ante-diluvian Patriarchs 
at the birth of his son, the residue of his years, and the total number of the 
years of his life. This third column is given in the Samaritan Pentateuch 
but is wanting in the case of the Hebrew and the LXX. It is here supplied 
in brackets for the sake of comparison. 

The second table gives a comparative view of the figures adopted by the 
Early Christian Fathers, and by Josephus. 



COMPARATIVE VIEW OF THE POST-DILUVIAN PATRIARCHS 



According to the Hebrew, Septuagint, and Samaritan Texts. 



Shem (after the 

Flood) 
Arphaxad 
Cainan 
Salah 
Eber 
Peleg 
Reu 
Serug 

Nahor 

Terah, to birth 
of Abram 


HEBREW. 


SEPTUAGINT. 


SAMARITAN. 


Age 

at 
birth 

of Resi- 
Son. due. Total. 


Age 

at 
birth 

of Resi- 
Son. due. Total. 


Age 

at 
birth 

of Resi- 
Son. due. Total. 


[98] +2 +500 = (600) 
35 +403 = (438) 

30 +403 = (433) 

3O +209 = (239) 
32 +207 = (239) 
30 +200 = (230) 

29 +119 = (148) 
130 +75 = (205) 


[98] +2 +500= (600) 
135+400 = (535) 
130+330= (460) 
130+330= (460) 

i o4 1 -V u — \4 U 4/ 
130+209= (339) 
132 +207= (339) 

1 30 +200 = (mo) 
J 79 1 , '2041 
1 179 J + I2 5- ,304) 

70 + I35 = (205) 


[98] + 2 + 500 = 600 
135+303 =438 

130 +303 = 433 

T "> A , 1 - 07H A r\ A 

134 + 270 _ 404 
130+109 = 239 
132 +107 = 239 
1 30 + IOO =230 

79 + 69 = 148 
70+ 75 = 145 


Total . . 


352 


942 (sic) 


942 


Add 2nd Cainan . . 1 30 

1072 

Add addition to Nahor 100 

1172 



COMPARATIVE VIEW OF THE POST-DILUVIAN PATRIARCHS 

According to the Early Christian Fathers, Theophilns, Ajricanus and 
Eusebius and the Jewish Historian, Josephns. 

Age of Patriarch at birth of son. 





THEOPHILUS. 


AFRICANUS. 


EUSEBIUS. 


JOSEPHUS. 


Shem after the Flood . . 






2 


12 


Arphaxad 


135 


135 


135 


135 


Cainan 










Salah 


I3O 


I3O 


I30 


I30 


Heber 


134 


134 


134 


134 


Peleg 


I30 


I3O 


I30 


I30 


Reu 


132 


132 


{132} 


I30 


Serug 


I30 


I30 


130 


132 


Nahor 


75 


79 


79 


I20 


Terah to birth of Abram 


70 


70 


70 


70 


Total 


936 


940 


942 


993 



80 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 81 



We have now to consider the relative weight and value of the testimony 
of the following witnesses — The Hebrew, the LXX., the Samaritan, the 
Early Christian Fathers, and Josephus. All the authorites omit the second 
Cainan, except the LXX. Theophilus omits the two years after the Flood, 
and shortens Nahor's 79 years to 75. Africanus omits the two years after 
the Flood, but otherwise agrees with the LXX. Eusebius gives 135 for Reu, 
but as he makes the total 942, this must be an error for 132. Josephus 
is singular in making the interval between the Flood and the birth of Arphaxad 
12 years instead of 2. He also adds an additional 41 years to the life of Nahor, 
making his years 120 instead of 79, thus adding altogether 51 years to the 
LXX. Chronology of the period. He also reverses the figures for Reu 130 
instead of 132, and Serug 132 instead of 130. 

We must not give to the testimony of the Early Christian Fathers an 
authority beyond its value. Their authority is not something additional to 
that of the LXX. It is the authority of the LXX. weakened by the fact that 
they manipulated the Text to make it fit in with their millenary chronological 
schemes. If we admit the testimony of Josephus, we have in favour of the 
longer Chronology before the Flood, two witnesses, the LXX. and Josephus ; 
after the Flood three witnesses, the LXX., Josephus and the Samaritan Text, 
the testimony of the Fathers being in each case included in that of the 
LXX. The alternative Chronologies for the period from Adam to the birth of 
Abram are two. 



COMPARATIVE VIEW OF THE LONGER AND SHORTER 
PATRIARCHAL CHRONOLOGIES. 



Alternatives. 


Before the 
Flood. 


After the 
Flood. 


Total. 


The HEBREW 
supported by the SAMARITAN 
before the Flood 


1656 


352 


2008 


The LXX. and JOSEPHUS 
supported by the SAMARITAN 
after the Flood 


2256 


993 


3249 



The interval from the creation of Adam to the birth of Abram was either 
2008 or 3249. The Samaritan Text agrees with the Hebrew before the Flood, 
and with the LXX. and Josephus after the Flood. 

The uncertainty does not arise from the want of testimony like that which 
occurs in the early Chronology of Greece, and many other countries where the 
times are uncertain because no evidence was preserved. It arises from a 
conflict between two different authorities, and we have to decide between 
F 



82 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



them. In the view of the present writer the evidence in favour of the orgin- 
ality of the Hebrew Text and the derivative character of the LXX. under the 
Hellenistic influences which prevailed at Alexandria (where the LXX. version 
was made between B.C. 250 and 180) is overwhelming. 

Clinton says the objection to the shorter Chronology of the Hebrew Text 
founded upon the supposition of the deficient numbers of mankind vanishes 
when the subject is better understood. " An army of Medes," he says, 
" occupied Babylon about B.C. 2233, and this is the highest point to which 
any authentic profane account will carry us." This, according to Clinton's 
Chronology, was " 250 years after the Flood," by which time " the population 
of the earth would amount to many millions." The translators of the Hebrew 
Text into the Greek LXX. had a very obvious motive for enlarging the 
Chronology. The history of the Chaldeans by Berosus, and the history of the 
Egyptians by Manetho were published about this time, and they laid claim to 
a remote antiquity for the beginning of their respective histories. It was 
natural that the translators of the LXX. should augment the Chronology of the 
period by the centenary additions, and by the insertion of the second Cainan, 
in order to carry back the epoch of the Creation and the Flood to a respectable 
antiquity, so that it might compare more favourably with that claimed for 
Babylon and Egypt. 

As there is no precedent in ante-diluvian times for placing the age of the 
Patriarchs at the birth of their sons so low as from 30 to 35 years, it seems 
probable that the Hebrew Text gives the true ages of the post-diluvian 
Patriarchs, as in fact they were. 

The LXX. and the Samaritan copyists, on the contrary, adapt the figures 
and give the ages as 130 to 135, and thereby preserve the appearance of a 
graduated instead of an abrupt fall in the ages of the- post-diluvian 
Patriarchs at the birth of their sons, and at the same time secure another 
6-J Centuries for their Chronology, thus throwing the date of Adam another 
650 years farther back than the date at which it is given in the Hebrew 
Text. 

Further traces of innovation and contrivance are disclosed in the sum 
totals of the lives of the Patriarchs. These are no longer expressed, but they 
are easily calculated, and a glance at the third columns of the three divisions 
of the Table on page 80 will show that, whilst the Hebrew Record displays 
considerable irregularity, the editors of the Septuagint and the Samaritan 
Texts have graduated the figures in such a way that the life of each succeeding 
Patriarch is nearly always somewhat shorter, or at all events not longer, than 
that of his predecessor. Thus, according to the Hebrew Text, the life of Eber 
is longer than that of Salah, and the life of Terah is considerably longer than 
that of Nahor, whilst at Peleg we reach another abrupt shortening of the 
period of human life from about 400 to 200, similar to the abrupt shortening 
from about 800 before the Flood to 400 in the Partiarchs born immediately 
after the Flood. 

According to the Hebrew scheme Arphaxad and Salah both lived 403 
years after the birth of their sons. If the plan adopted by the editors or 
the copyists of the LXX. in the ante-diluvian scheme had been applied 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



83 



here the residues of the lives of Arphaxad and Salah would have been 
reduced to 303, and the Chronology would not have been affected thereby. 

But the editors of the LXX. appear to have had two motives, viz. two 
distinct kinds of critics, or potential raisers of plausible objections to the 
Hebrew Record, to conciliate. They must not only extend the Chronology 
of the period by adding another 6i Centuries to the figures as given 
in the Hebrew Text, but they must also exhibit a graduated scale 
of reduction in the term of human life, minimizing the abruptness of the fall 
in the ages of the Patriarchs Arphaxad and Peleg, and lengthening the life 
of Nahor, who died, according to the Hebrew Text, at the comparatively 
early age of 148. Hence they make the residue of Arphaxad's years 400, 
whilst those of Salah are reduced to 330. According to the Hebrew Text, 
Eber's residue is 430 and his total 464, whilst Peleg, who comes next on the 
list, lived to be only 209. In order to break the abruptness of the fall from 
464 to 209 in the standard of human longevity, Eber's 430 years' residue is 
changed into 270. The residues of Peleg, Reu and Serug, according to the 
Hebrew Text, are 209, 207 and 200 years respectively. But the reduction 
of human life in the case of Eber has been so great and so sudden that no 
further deduction can be made, so these residues are allowed to stand unaltered. 
Nahor does not live long enough to meet the requirements of the scheme ; 
he therefore receives an addition of 56 years to bring his age up to within 
a year of that of Terah, and of these 50 are apportioned to his age at the birth 
of his son, and the remaining 6 are added to the residue of his years. The 
reason why Nahor receives only 50 additional years to his age at the birth 
of his son, instead of the usual 100 years given to each of his predecessors, 
is, because the addition of the full Century would interfere with the fabricator's 
idea of the gradual decline in the standard of human life. For other reasons 
the figures were afterwards altered to 179, an addition of 150 years, in order 
to make the Chronology square with the presupposition of the Chiliasts, or 
millenary Chronologers. The net effect of all these alterations is that the 
list as given in the LXX. exhibits a carefully graded declension in the standard 
of human life instead of one that is like what we find in nature, irregular, 
abrupt and startling. 

It is impossible to give any rational account of the derivation of the Hebrew 
figures from the LXX. on the supposition that those given in the LXX. are 
the original. The compilers of the Hebrew Text might conceivably have 
deducted the 6% Centuries if they wished to shorten the Chronology, but no 
motive can be assigned for their wishing to do this, and even if they had reduced 
the Chronology of the period in this way no possible motive can be assigned 
for their interfering with the residues of the post-diluvian Patriarchs, 
which did not affect the chronological question at all. The sudden abridgment 
of human life by one half in the case of Arphaxad, as compared with the length 
of the lives of the Patriarchs who lived before the Flood, and the further 
sudden drop by another half in the days of Peleg, are not only without motive, 
but even if they could be shown to be the work of a capricious inventor, or 
a conscious forger, the results obtained are wholly gratuitous. In the case 
of the Hebrew numbers we have an irregular list, manifesting a total absence 



8 4 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



of any indication of manipulation of contrivance. In the case of the LXX. we 
have unmistakable evidences of a two-fold motive (i) the lengthening of the 
Chronology and (2) the graduation of the decline in the duration of human 
life, in order to make the scheme plausible and palatable to the " Wisdom 
of the Greeks." 

In like manner the contriver of the Samaritan scheme manipulates the 
figures of the Hebrew Text in accordance with his own personal preferences. 
In the Table of the post-diluvian Patriarchs he adopts the longer Chron- 
ology adding the 6^ centuries to the Hebrew in the same way as the LXX. 
has done, but he still more carefully graduates the decline in the standard 
of human life, each succeeding Patriarch, including Eber and Terah, being 
made to die in almost every case at an earlier age than his father. 

The argument advanced for the longer Chronology of the LXX. and the 
Samaritan versions, on the ground that the age of puberty at any period of 
human history must bear a fixed proportion to the ordinary length of life 
in that period, is a gratuitous assumption, wholly unsupported by testimony 
and confuted by the facts recorded in the Old Testament, for in the period 
to which Jacob, Levi and Kohath belonged, the age of puberty was the same 
as it is amongst ourselves to-day, viz. about 14 or 15, but the average duration 
of life was nearly double that of the standard three score years and ten of 
the present day, for Jacob lived to be 147, Levi to be 137 and Kohath to 
be 133. 

The introduction of the second Cainan between Arphaxad and Salah, 
in the LXX., adds another 130 years to the longer Chronology of that Version. 
It is undoubtedly a spurious addition to the Hebrew Text. The motive 
was no doubt partly the desire to lengthen the Chronology, but the manner 
in which this is done needs explanation. Possibly the desire to form a second 
list of 10 Patriarchs from the Flood to Abraham, corresponding with the list 
of 10 patriarchs from Adam to Noah, may account for the insertion of the 
extra name. In that case it would seem to have escaped the notice of 
the inventor of the extra name that the list of Patriarchs from the Flood to 
Noah, as given in the Hebrew Text of Genesis n 10-26 , already contains ten 
names and can only be reckoned as nine when the name of Shem is omitted 
from the list. 

The origin and the motive of the insertion of the name of Cainan and his 
130 years between Arphaxad and Salah, is amply explained from the 
enumeration of the years of the period from Adam to Peleg given in the writings 
of the Christain Chronologer Theophilus (Bishop of Antioch a.d. 176-186). 

In his days the leading writers of the Christian Church were dominated 
with the idea of six millenary ages of the world, which they regarded as 
equally divided into two periods of 3,000 years each at the 130th year of Peleg's 
life, when he begat his son Reu, Peleg's name signifying " division." The fol- 
lowing is the enumeration of the 3,000 years of this Period given by Theophilus, 
He first adds 100 years to the life of Adam at the birth of Seth. This makes 
the period from Adam to the Flood 2,362 years, instead of 2,262 according 
to the LXX. He then adds, the years of Arphaxad 135,. Salah 130, Eber 134 
and Peleg 130 at the birth of their sons, which brings the total up to 2,891. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



85 



This calculation, it will be observed, like that of Africanus, misses out altogether 
the 2 years from the Flood to the birth of Arphaxad. For the reduction 
of the years of Methuselah from 187 to 167 a double motive may be assigned. 
It was done partly to approximate the age of Methuselah at the birth of his 
son to the ages of the patriarchs immediately preceding him, and partly to 
cover up, and so to prevent the detection of, the fraud in connection with 
the spurious addition of the 2nd Cainan, whose name is taken from the list 
of the Ante-diluvian Patriarchs in Genesis 5 9 . 

The rest of the story cannot be better told than as it is in the posthumous 
tract of John Gregorie, M.A., chaplain of Christ Church, Oxford, on "The 
Disproof of the Second Cainan," in which the matter is put thus : — ■ 

" By the period of Theophilus the interval from Adam to Phalec was 
2,891 years : to this no years were to be added. First, then, to make it look 
unlike a cheat, they cut off 20 years from Methuselah's sum, and whereas 
Theophilus had reckoned him at 187, they set him down 176, as in some copies 
it still standeth. Then it was from Adam to Phalec 2,871 years. This done, 
they insert a new Cainan, assigning him 130 years, which added to the former 
sum precisely maketh up 3,000 years from Adam to the 130th year of 
Phalec." 

It was only subsequently that the discovery was made that this reduction 
of the age of Methuselah, at the birth of Lamech, from 187 to 167, the 20 years 
being added to the residue of his 969 years, involved the absurdity of making 
him survive the Flood by a period of 14 years, whereupon the number was 
altered back to 167. Consequently the copies of the LXX. vary between the 
two numbers, some giving 187 and some 167. 

The occurrence of these various readings in the LXX., as contrasted with 
the absence of various readings in the Hebrew Text, is an additional argument 
in favour of the originality of the Hebrew, and the derivative character of the 
Septuagint. 

Many other arguments may be adduced to prove the spurious character 
of the addition of the second Cainan. 

(1) It is omitted from the Hebrew Massoretic Text, and also from the Samari- 
tan, as well as from all the ancient versions and Targums of Gen. n 12 . 

(2) It is omitted from the Hebrew Text of the two passages 1 Chronicles 
I 18 - 24 , and also from many copies of the LXX. version of that passage, 
though 21 copies collated by Dr. Parsons have it, in verse 18, and 6 copies 
have it in verse 24. 

(3) Josephus omits Cainan in his list of the Post-diluvian Patriarchs 
and so does Philo by implication, for he reckons ten generations before the 
Flood from Adam to Noah, and ten generations after the Flood from Shem 
to Abraham, which leaves no room for Cainan in the second group. 

(4) Berosus (b.c. 284) and Eupolemus (b.c. 174) represent Abraham as 
living in the 10th generation after the Flood, whereas if the name of Cainan 
had been included Abraham would have been living in the nth generation 
after the Flood. 

(5) Origen marks the name of Cainan with an obelisk in his copv of the 
LXX., to mark his rejection of it as not genuine. 



86 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



(6) Eusebius excludes him by reckoning only 942 years from the Flood 
to Abraham, and in this he is followed by Epiphanius and Jerome. 

(7) The name is evidently a late invention of the Chiliasts, who reckoned 
up their Chronology by periods of a thousand years, and where the facts were 
stubborn they invented others, and thus retained their theory. 

It is immaterial as to the date at which the name of Cainan was inserted 
in the LXX. version of Gen. n 12 , 1 Chron. i 18 - 24 . Demetrius, a writer 
who flourished in the time of Ptolemy Philopator (b.c. 222-204) is quoted 
by Polyhistor as having reckoned 1070 years from the Flood to the birth of 
Abraham, and the two years from the Flood to the birth of Arphaxad, he 
invariably includes in the years before the Flood. The LXX. makes the 
period from the Flood to the birth of Abraham 942 years without, or 
1072 years with Cainan. It is plain therefore from the 1070 + 2 years of 
Demetrius that the name of Cainan was included in the copy of the 
LXX. which he used. This, however, only proves the high antiquity of 
the error. 

The fact that the name of the second Cainan occurs in the genealogy of 
Mary, the mother of our Lord, in Luke 3 36 , is easily explained. The Bible, 
as it was held in the hands of the common people, in the time of our Lord, 
was the LXX. The LXX. was to them what our Authorized Version is to 
us. Scholars like Paul, and students of the Word like our Lord and His 
Apostles, had access to the Hebrew Text also, but Luke, the only writer of 
any book contained in the New Testament who was not a Jew (Col. 4 10 " 14 ) 
and the one writer whose Gospel was specifically addressed to a Greek reader 
(Luke 1 3 ), would naturally use and quote from the Greek version in common 
use, and if the copy of the LXX. which he used contained the spurious addition 
of the name of the second Cainan, the error would of course be reproduced 
in his Gospel, just in the same way as any error of translation in the A.V. would 
be reproduced by any layman occupying a modern pulpit, and acquainted 
only with the Scriptures in the Authorized Version. 

It is just possible, of course, that Luke never wrote the word Cainan in Luke 
3 36 , for it is omitted in the Codex Bezae, the great Cambridge Uncial of the 
6th Century, but the weight of traditional authority is in favour of his having 
taken the word from his copy of the LXX., for it occurs in all the great Uncials, 
NABLTAAn, etc., except the Codex Bezae D, though it is spelt Cainam instead 
of Cainan in some of them. 

We have still to account for the alternative addition of 100 years to the 
life of Nahor at the birth of his son. Here again we trace the influence of 
the dominating idea of measuring the distance between the great epochs 
of the Scripture narrative by millenniums. If the Chiliast, who was not 
satisfied with the alteration of Nahor's age from the 29 of the Hebrew Text 
to the 79 of the original copies of the LXX., may be supposed to have been 
acquainted with the fact that Terah's age at the birth of Abram was not 70 
but 130, this late alteration from 79 to 179 is satisfactorily explained by 
R. G. Faussett in his Symmetry of Time. Mr. Faussett supposes the addition of 
the further 100 years to the life of Adam at the birth of.Seth, making it 330 
instead of 230, to have been unacceptable. The period from Adam to the 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 87 



Flood is restored, and stands at 2,262 as in the scheme of Africanus. We then 
proceed as follows : — ■ 

Millenary Scheme accounting for Nabor's Age — 179. 



Adam to the Flood 2,262 

Shem after the Flood . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

Arphaxad . . . . . . . . . . . • • . • • 135 

Cainan interpolated . . . . . . . . . . . . 13° 

Salah 130 

Eber 134 

Peleg 130 

Reu . . 132 

Serug 130 

Nahor 79+100 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 179 

Terah 130 

To the call of Abraham . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 

To the Exodus 43° 



3,999 



This, with the addition of the year of the Flood, which some have reckoned 
as an additional year independent of the years before and after, would make 
up the 4,000 years complete, and thus account for the addition of the further 
100 years to the age of Nahor at the birth of Terah. 

These millenary adaptations of the Chronology of the Scriptures have done 
much to bring the subject of Chronology into disrepute. The only way in which 
the credit of the Science can be restored is to adhere strictly to the actual 
statements of the original text, and to deal with these statements in accordance 
with the laws of the Science of History, which places the criterion of credibility 
and the test of truth in the testimony of witnesses at once honest, capable and 
contemporary. The identification of the dates of the dedication of Solomon's 
Temple and the birth of Christ with the years an. hom. 3000 and 4000 respec- 
tively must be jealously scrutinized, and the facts must not be warped in 
order to bring about the exhibition of this result. 

Threefold attack on Biblical Chronology. 

Three other branches of study have a direct bearing upon the Chronology of 
this period, and must be briefly, though but very inadequately, referred to here. 

In the departments of Geology and evolutionary Biology, it has been 
maintained that the origin of man must be placed away back in the dim and 
distant past, some hundreds of thousands of years before the date assigned 
to it on any interpretation of the earliest historic records that have been 
preserved to us. 

In the departments of Archaeology and Anthropology, it has been main- 
tained that the antiquity of man must be dated at a much earlier period than 
the 6000 years attributed to it in the Chronology of Ussher, as given by Bishop 
Lloyd in the margin of our Authorized Version, a scheme of Chronology which 



88 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



does not err by more than 38 years from that which lies embedded in the 
Hebrew Text, and also at a much earlier period than the 7500 years or 
thereabout required by the longer Chronology of the LXX. 

In the department of Biblical Criticism doubt has been thrown upon the 
historic character of the testimony of the early chapters of Genesis, which 
have been regarded as a late compilation of myth and legend, the product 
of early human fancy, and of the working of the primitive mythopoetic 
faculty of man upon a rudimentary knowledge of the outer world. 

1. Evolution and the Origin of Man. 
(t) Evolutionary Biology. 

With regard to the evolutionary theory of the origin of man, it must 
be remarked, that however widely this theory has won the acceptance of 
acknowledged authorities in the world of learning and scholarship in the present 
day, it still remains an unproved hypothesis. The theory is largely grounded 
upon (1) observed and admitted structural analogies between the skeleton 
of the anthropoid ape and that of man, (2) upon observed and admitted 
correspondences between homologous parts, such as the fin of a fish, the wing 
of a bird, the foreleg of a quadruped and the arm of a man, and (3) upon observed 
and admitted analogous stages of development in the prenatal condition of 
the offspring of man, corresponding with stages of development, illustrated 
in the classification or grouping of the various members of the animal world, 
as they rise in the scale of life, as determined by the principles of comparative 
anatomy. The correspondence between the ontogenic or embryonic series, the 
taxonomic or natural history series, and the phylogenic or geologic or evolu- 
tionary series, is admitted. But the fallacy of the evolutionary theory lies in 
the inference drawn from the fact. The truth is that these homologous 
parts prove only a common Creator, not a common ancestor ; a common 
Author, not a common derivation. Two works of art exactly resembling 
each other may be accounted for as products of one and the same artistic 
genius, without supposing the one to be derived or copied from the other. 
Two coins exactly alike prove a common matrix, not derivation the one from 
the other. In like manner the resemblances that obtain betweeen man and 
the lower animals, clearly prove the unity of their common Creatorship, whilst 
the transcendent differences between them prove with equal conclusiveness 
that the one is not evolved or derived from the other. 

The theory of evolution requires us to believe that man was originally 
an absolute savage, and that something like at least 100,000 years must 
have elapsed from the first beginnings of human life to the development of 
the civilized condition of man in the present day. 

There is no proof of this supposed priority of savagery to any form of 
civilization. Sir Charles Lyall admits, in his " Antiquity of Man," that " we 
have no distinct geological evidence that the appearance of what are called 
the inferior races of mankind has always preceded in chronological order 
that of the higher races," and a similar confession was made by Mr. Pengelly, 
at the meeting of the British Association held at Bristol in August, 1875. Sir 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



89 



J. W. Dawson, President of the British Association in 1888, declares that the 
origin of man is to be fixed geologically within a moderate number of 
millenniums, say seven or eight. He regards palaeolithic man, to whom 
Professor J. A. Thompson, in his Bible of Nature, assigns an antiquity of 
150,000 to 300,000 years, as the ante-diluvian of Scripture, and he finds 
indications of a general if not a universal Deluge, within the aforesaid 
human period of 7,000 or 8,000 years. 

Belief in the enormously remote antiquity of man rests upon the assumption 
of slow and gradual emergence from a prior condition of brutishness and 
savagery, and proceeds by way of a priori reasoning on these supposed 
"origins," the arguments employed being in many instances of the most 
inconclusive and questionable kind. 

Lord Salisbury, in his Presidential Address to the British Association 
in 1894, quoted Lord Kelvin as having " limited the period of organic life 
upon the earth to 100 million years," and Professor Tait as having " in a 
still more penurious spirit cut that hundred down to ten." " On the other 
side of the account," he sarcastically remarks, " stand the claims of the 
.geologists and biologists. They have revelled in the prodigality of the cyphers 
which they put at the end of the earth's hypothetical age. Long cribbed 
.and cabined within the narrow bounds of popular Chronology, they have 
exulted wantonly in their new freedom." Where the differences are so 
enormous they are clearly the result of the exercise of scientific imagination, 
and are not due to the scientific observation of facts. 

(2) Geology. 

The computations of the older geologists, based on the rate of deposits 
and the occurrence in them of human remains, flint implements, and other 
evidences of man's handiwork, are notoriously unreliable. Professor Boyd 
Dawkins enters a caveat against such computations, and declares that in 
his view they have all ended in failure. Mr. Pengelly, in his address to the 
British Association in 1888, allowed 5,000 years for the deposit of one inch of 
stalagmite in Kent's Cavern or 300,000 years for 5 feet. But Professor 
Boyd Dawkins, in Cave Hunting, declares that it might have been formed at 
the rate of \ of an inch per annum, thus reducing the 300,000 years of 
Mr. Pengelly to 250 years. 

The whole principle and method of these geological computations is vicious. 
•Of course, if there is to be Science, there must be uniformity, but we do not 
arrive at science by assuming uniformity where it does not exist. We have 
no warrant for the assumption that the earth was produced at a uniform rate 
•of infinite slowness, by those forces, and those only, which are in operation 
at the present time. 

Cave-bears, Hyenas, and mammoths were formerly referred by geologists 
to the Tertiary period, i.e. the period preceding the present Quaternary period, 
and from the fact that human skeletons were found alongside of mammoth 
skeletons in a cave at Aurignac, on the northern slopes of the Pyrenees, it 
was inferred that man belonged to the Tertiary period, and was therefore 



9 o 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



of very great antiquity. But it has now been proved, from the pile-buildings, 
that the first inhabitants of Europe, who belonged to the stone age, came 
from Asia not earlier than 2000 B.C., and therefore after the period at which the 
Deluge is placed in the Hebrew Chronolgy of the Old Testament. Hence 
the true inference is, not that man belongs to the earlier (Tertiary) period, 
but that mammoths belong to the later (Quaternary) or present period. 

A glance at the following diagram will make clear the failure of the demand 
for an antiquity in the human race to be measured only in terms of 
geologic ages. 



GEOLOGICAL TABLE OF ROCKS AND FOSSILS. 

















Graphic 
Representa- 
tion of 
Fossil 
Remains. 




I (0 
/ ^> 

/ ^ 
/ O 

/ 


/ <o x 
Ik. 

/ 


ho \ 

. /-J ■ ^ 


/<* 

/ 


\J MAN 

MAMMAL 

Ktr l I Lt_ 

/ *_ fr 1 c u 

^ HoH 

Ik — 

£ MOLLUSC 


Fossils. 


No 
Fossils. 


Seaweed 

and 
Trilobites. 


Ferns 
and 
Bone-clad 
Fish. 


Pines 
and 
Reptiles. 


Timber 
and 
Mammalia. 


Timber 
and 
Man. 


Series. 


Stratified 
Schistose. 


Llandovery 
Llandilo. 
Tremadoc. 


Red 
Sandstone. 

Coal and 
Limestone. 

Old Red 
Sandstone. 


Chalk, etc. 

Oolite. 
Portland. 
Bath, Lias, 
etc. 


Pleiocene. 

Miocene. 
Oligocene. 

Eocene. 


Recent, 
Prehistoric. 
Pleistocene 
or Glacial. 


Systems. 


Hauronian. 
Laurentian. 


Silurian. 
Ordovician. 
Cambrian. 


Permian 
or Dyassic. 
Carbon- 
iferous. 
Devonian. 


Cretaceous. 
Jurassic. 
Triassic. 


Tertiary. 


Post- 
Tertiary. 


Periods. 


Eozoic. 


Protozoic. 


Deutero- 
zoic. 


Mcsozoic. 


Cainozoic. 


Anthro- 
pozoic. 


Rocks. 


Archaean. 


Primary. 


Secondary. 


Tertiary. j< 


Quaternary. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



The movement of evolution has been cyclic. Five cycles, Dynasties (Le 
Conte), Reigns (Agassiz), or Ages (Dana), have been traced by geologists in 
the fossil remains embedded in the crust of the earth, (i) Molluscs, (2) Fishes, 
(3) Reptiles, (4) Mammals, and (5) Man. The Archaean rocks of the earliest 
Eozoic period of the earth's existence contain no fossils at all. The Primary 
rocks of the Protozoic period contain no vertebrates. The earth was filled 
with molluscs of greater size, number and variety than at any other period 
in its history. In the Primary rocks of the Deuterozoic period, fishes were 
introduced and became dominant. They increased rapidly in size, number 
and variety, and usurped the empire of the sea, whilst the mollusca dwindled 
in size, and sought safety elsewhere. Amphibians appear in this period, 
but true reptiles only in the Secondary rocks of the succeeding Mesozoic 
period. Mammals begin to appear in this period, but not till we reach the 
Tertiary rocks of the Cainozoic period do they appear in such size, numbers 
and strength, as to overpower the great reptiles and secure the empire of the 
earth. We now reach the Quaternary rocks of the latest of the geologic 
ages, called the Anthropozoic period, because here for the first time fossil 
remains of man begin to appear. The Anthropozoic period is also called the 
Pleistocene or " most recent," the Glacial, and sometimes the Prehistoric 
period. Geology thus witnesses to the recent creation of man, of whom there 
is no trace till we reach this latest strata. " The low antiquity of our species," 
says Sir Charles Lyall, in his Principles of Geology, " is not controverted by 
any experienced geologist. If there be a difference of opinion respecting 
the occurrence in certain deposits of the remains of man and his works, it 
is always in reference to strata, confessedly of the most modern order." 

On the question how long this period has lasted, or when it first begun, 
no answer can be given. So far as the facts are concerned, it is an open 
question, a question on which the natural science of Geology is incompetent 
to pronounce judgment. If the theory of evolution be assumed, if the " con- 
tinuous progressive change, according to certain fixed laws, by means of 
resident forces," which it postulates, be taken for granted, if the countless 
ages which the theory demands for the evolution of the present condition 
of the world be conceded, then a fairly plausible theory of the past history 
of the world has been constructed. 

But it must not be forgotten that it is only a construction put upon the 
facts, and not an explanation derived from the facts ; that the theory is 
incapable of verification and that the rival theory of catastrophic " jumps," 
" saltations," " leaps," and " lifts " in nature, as opposed to the gradual 
continuous and infinitesimally slow process of evolution, gives a better expla- 
nation of the facts, and commends itself to the judgment of leading geological 
authorities, of equal repute with those who postulate for man an antiquity 
incomparably greater than that for which historic evidence can be produced. 

The method of obtaining hundreds of thousands of years for the antiquity 
of the human race, by computing the time required for the deposition of certain 
alluvial deposits, in which human remains have been found, yields no reliable 
scientific results. Nothing is more uncertain than these geological com- 
putations. The rates of alluvial depositions are so variable, that they mock 



<92 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



all calculations. Thus, a vessel containing many antiquities was discovered 
some years ago in a peat bog in Sundewitt, on the eastern coast of Schleswig. 
According to geological calculations it was many thousands of years old, but 
on being searched it was found to contain coins struck between a.d. 300 and 
400. Cuvier's argument that the traditions and the historical consciousness 
of the race do not reach further back than 3,000 years before Christ, and that 
this would not have been possible, if the race were 100,000 years old, has 
never been refuted. 

2. Archeology and the Antiquity of Man. 

Turning from the vague uncertainties of scientific hypothesis respecting 
the origin of man, to the historic records respecting his antiquity, we at 
once reach firmer ground. 

The study of Egyptian and Chaldean history has materially affected 
•our Chronology of the early history of civilization in these countries. An 
antiquity is now claimed for the commencement of the annals of these nations 
inconsistent with the date assigned to the Deluge (an. hom. 1656 = B.C. 2348 
(Ussher). The Era of Menes, the first King of Egypt, is placed by some as 
high as B.C. 2717, whilst the Era of the Chaldean dynasty of Berosus, the 
earliest which has any claim to be regarded as historical, is placed somewhere 
about the year B.C. 2234. The validity of these claims depends upon the 
value we assign to the numbers of Manetho for Egyptian Chronology, to those 
of Berosus for Babylonian Chronology, and the astronomical calculations 
by which they are supposed to be confirmed.. 

The antiquity of civilization in Babylon and Egypt is ably treated by 
'Canon Rawlinson, in his little volume on the Origin of Nations. Egypt and 
Babylon have Monuments to show which antedate all others on the surface 
of the earth. The conclusion at which Canon Rawlinson arrives with regard 
to Egypt is that the beginning of civilization there, can be traced back no 
further than 2250 or 2450 B.C. 

The date of the Flood, according to the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament 
• as stated by Ussher, is 2348 B.C. We ought, however, to add 38 years to 
Ussher's date and make it B.C. 2386, as the present writer hopes to be able to 
prove. Petavius' date is B.C. 2327, Clinton's B.C. 2482. These all follow the 
short Chronology of the Hebrew Text. In either case we are well within the limit 
of compatibility with Bible Chronology if we adopt Canon Rawlinson's lower 
date. The margin would be still greater if, with Canon Rawlinson, we adopted 
the Chronology of the LXX., according to which the date of the Flood is 
B.C. 3246. Hales' date is 3155, Jackson's 3170, Poole's 3159. These all follow 
the longer Chronology of the LXX. But this we have seen reason to reject. 

(1) Egypt. 

All the authorities are agreed that however far we go back in the history 
of Egypt, there is no indication of any early period of savagery or barbarism 
there. Menes, the first King, builds a great reservoir and a temple at 
Memphis. His son builds a palace there, and mites a book on Anatomy. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



The Great Pyramid of Gheezeh, if not the oldest as well as the greatest 
and most wonderful structure on the earth's surface, falls very early in 
Egyptian history, and the hieroglyphics in it prove that even then writing 
had been long in use. 

The epoch of the foundation of the Great Pyramid of Gheezeh is given 
by Piazzi Smith, Astronomer Royal for Scotland, in his Book, Our Inheritance- 
in the Great Pyramid, as 2170 B.C. He regards the peculiarly constructed 
entrance passage as having been built for astronomical and chronological 
purposes. 

The Great Pyramid is the greatest of all the Seven Wonders of the World,, 
the most perfect as well as the most gigantic specimen of masonry the world 
has ever seen. It is the earliest stone building known to have been erected, 
in any country. Its finished parts contain not a vestige of heathenism or 
idolatry. It was not built like the other pyramids as a tomb. Its author 
was not an Egyptian but a descendant of Shem, in the line of Abraham, but 
preceding him so early as to be somewhat nearer to Noah than to Abraham. 
It embodies exact mathematical knowledge of the grander cosmic phenomena 
of both earth and heavens. It is astronomically oriented on all its sides.. 
Its passages are in the plane of the Meridian. It marks the period of the 
precession of the Equinoxes as a period of 25,827 years dating from the year 
2,170 B.C., a period given by the famous astronomers Tycho Brahe and La 
Place as 25,816 years. It gives a practical solution of the theoretically in- 
soluble problem of squaring the circle, for its vertical height is to twice the 
breadth of its base as the diameter to the circumference of a circle, a ratio 
expressed in mathematics by ir or 3*14,159 etc.. That is to say, its height 
is the radius of a theoretical circle, the length of whose curved circumference 
is equal to the sum of the lengths of the four straight lines of its base. It 
is a standard of linear measure, and each of its sides measures 365-242 sacred, 
cubits of 25*025 British inches, thus measuring another incommensurable 
quantity, viz., the exact number of days in a year. It monumentalizes the 
size of the earth and its distance from the sun. In fact the marvels of 
mathematical and astronomical knowledge embodied in this unquestionably 
early structure go far to destroy the theory of the original savagery of 
primitive man. 

The dates attributed to the Kings of Egypt in E.. A. Wallis Budge's Guide 
to the Egyptian Collections in the British Museum go back as far as B.C. 4400, 
a date anterior to the period assigned in the Hebrew Text to the creation 
of the first man. But as a matter of fact there is a great diversity of opinion 
among Egyptologists as to the date of Menes, the first King of the first of the 
31 dynasties, as the following list of authorities (from the Encyclopedia 
Britannica, nth edition) will show: — 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



Date of King Menes and Beginning of Civilization in Egypt according to the views 

of leading Egyptologists. 

Flinders Petrie (in 1906) . . . . . . . . . . . . 5510 

Mariette, Director of the Cairo Museum . . . . . . 5004 

Lenormant, a pupil of Mariette . . . . . . . . 5004 

Flinders Petrie (in 1894) . . . . . . . . . . 4777 

Dr. Brugsch, Director of the Berlin Museum . . . . . . 4400 

E. A. Wallis Budge, British Museum . . . . . . . . 4400 

Dr. Lepsius, Author of Chronology of the Egyptians . . 3892 

Baron Bunsen (earlier view) . . . . . . . . . . 3623 

Breasted (American, 1906) . . . . . . . . . . 3400 

K. Sethe (German, 1905) . . . . . . . . . . 3360 

Ed. Meyer (German, 1887) . . . . . . . . . . 3180 

Baron Bunsen (later view) . . . . . . . . . . 3059 

R. Stuart Poole (British Museum) . . . . . . . . 2717 

Sir Gardner Wilkinson (our greatest English Egyptologist) 2691 

All these are the views of men acquainted with the Monuments and 
competent to translate the Inscriptions. They differ from one another by 
as much as 2,000 years. This extraordinary variation is a proof of the fact 
that no sure basis has yet been discovered upon which to reach an assured 
scientific conclusion. The whole subject is involved in great obscurity and 
uncertainty. 

The fact is the Egyptians themselves never had any Chronology at all. 
They had no Era. They were destitute of the chronological idea. It was 
not their habit to enter into computations of times. " The evidence of the 
Monuments in respect of the Chronology," says Mr. R. Stuart - Poole, "is 
neither full or explicit." Baron Bunsen says, "Chronology cannot be elicted 
from them." The attempt to construct a Chronology of Egypt would have 
been abandoned altogether if it had not been for Manetho, an Egyptian priest 
of Sebennytus (c. B.C. 280-250) who composed a history of Egypt in Greek 
in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus. 

Scarcely anything at all is known of him, except his history, the fame 
of which was much increased by the fact that he wrote it in the Greek language. 
The work itself is lost, but fragments of it are preserved in Josephus, 
Eusebius, Syncellus and other writers. The scheme of Manetho as given 
by Eusebius in his Chronica, is as follows : — ■ 

Egyptian Chronology according to Mm 
Reign of Gods 
Reign of Heroes 



Reign of Kings 
Reign of 30 Memphite Kings 
Reign of 10 Thinite Kings 
Reign of Manes and Heroes 



Thirty dynasties of Kings about 

(viz. 4,922, 4,954 or 5,329 years, according to 
various readings) 



etho. 

. 13,900 years 

. 1,255 H 

. 1,817 „ 

• i,79° 

350 „ 

• 5.813 „ 



24>9 2 5 
5,000 

29,925 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



The mythological character of the scheme is apparent. Nevertheless 
it has been adopted as the basis of numerous speculative chronological systems, 
or rather schools of Chronology, by Scaliger, Ussher, Bunsen, Poole, and other 
writers. The Long Chronology followed by Scaliger assumes that the 30 
dynasties were all consecutive, and elevates the date of Manes to 5702 B.C. 
The Short Chronology followed by Ussher assumes that several of the dynasties 
were contemporary, and endeavours to square the figures of Manetho with 
the Hebrew Chronology, which dates the creation of Adam B.C. 4004 according 
to Ussher or B.C. 4042 according to the conclusion of the present writer. 

The two principal authorities for the Chronology of Egypt are the Turin 
Papyrus, a list of Kings compiled in the 19th dynasty, which is in a terrible 
state of dilapidation, and the list of Kings and dynasties compiled by Manetho. 
Manetho is the only authortiy which offers a complete Chronology, and his 
evidence is very untrustworthy, being known only from late excerpts. For 
the 19th dynasty Manetho's figures are wrong wherever we can check them. 

The Monuments themselves do not begin their records before the 19th 
dynasty or about B.C. 1590 (Budge, 1350 B.C.). 

The source of the prevailing uncertainty is to be found in the fact that 
some of Manetho's dynasties are contemporary and not successive. This is 
admitted by every Egyptologist of note except Mariette and Flinders Petrie. 
Even Lenormant deserts his master here, and makes the 9th, 10 th and nth 
dynasties contemporary ; also the 13th and 14th. Dr. Brugsch makes the 
3th, 9th, 10 th and nth dynasties contemporary. Also the 13th and 14th, and 
several others. Baron Bunsen, Sir G. Wilkinson, and Mr. R. Stuart Poole 
carry out the principle of contemporaneousness further still. 

There is also another source of uncertainty in the numbers of Manetho, 
arising from the fact that he is variously quoted by Eusebius and Africanus. 
Thus Eusebius gives 100 years, and Africanus 409 years, for the 9th dynasty. 
Eusebius makes the three Shepherd dynasties 103, 250 and 190 years. 
Africanus gives them as 284, 518 and 151, a difference of 410 years. There 
is no possibility of reconciling these differences, and no possibility of arriving 
at any assured scientific Chronology of Egypt from the materials in our 
possession. 

Under these circumstances, Egyptologists choose the longer or the shorter 
period according to their own fancy. In reality Egyptian Chronology cannot 
be said to begin until the accession of the 18th dynasty. Even then it is 
far from exact, the best critics varying in their dates for this event as much 
as 200 years. 

Canon Rawlinson places it about the year 1500 B.C. There was an older 
Egyptian Empire which may have come to an end about 1750 B.C., and to it 
the pyramids belonged. But its duration can only be guessed. Canon 
Rawlinson thinks it may have lasted 500 years or so. This would bring 
us to 2250 B.C. as the date of the establishment of civilization in the form of 
a settled government in Egypt, or about a hundred years after the date of 
the Flood (b.c. 2348, Ussher, or B.C. 2386 according to the present writer's 
interpretation of the Chronology of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament). 

The presuppositions which are necessary to give validity to the Chronology 



9 6 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



of the Egyptologists are admirably stated by Mr. E. A. Wallis Budge, in his 
Guide to the Egyptian Collection in the British Museum, and the impossibility 
of arriving at any assured scientific conclusion on the subject in the present 
state of our knowledge is frankly admitted. 

To make a complete scheme of Egyptian Chronology he says " we need 
a complete list of the Kings of Egypt, and to know the order in which each 
succeeded and the number of years which he reigned. Now such a list does not 
exist, for the lists we have only contain selections of kings' names, and of many 
a King neitherthe order of his succession nor the length of his reign is known."* 

The authorities for the names of the Kings are tabulated as follows : — 

Sources from which Egyptian Chronology is derived. 

1. The Royal Papyrus of Turin. 

2. The Tablet of Abydos. 

3. The Tablet of Sakkarah. 

4. The Egyptian Monuments of all periods, and 

5. The King List of Manetho. 

The Turin Papyrus was compiled about B.C. 1500. It contained, when complete, 
the names of over 300 Kings, and gave the lengths of their reigns. The 
Tablet of Abydos was made for Seti I (of the 19th dynasty, B.C. 1350 according to 
Budge) and contained 76 names. The Tablet of Sakkarah contained 50 names. 

The list of Manetho was compiled for King Ptolemy II, Philadelphus 
(B.C. 283-247), but the work itself is lost, and we only know it in the form 
in which it has come down to us in 

(1) The Chronicle of Julius Africanus (a.d. 3rd century) ; 

(2) The Chronicle of Eusebius (a.d. 265-340) ; and 

(3) The Chronography of George the Monk (Georgius Syncellus of 

the 8th century a.d.). 
The results preserved in Eusebius differ from those given by Africanus for 
almost every one of the 31 dynasties. 

A great many credible facts may be gathered from these sources, but 
no scientific result can be arrived at by averaging the conflicting numbers 
of these discordant authorities. 

Manetho is the only authority who provides materials for any kind of 
estimate of the duration of the period from Mena or Menes, who by general 
consent is allowed to have been the first dynastic King of Egypt. The 
deduction of 4,000 or 5,000 drawn by E. A. Wallis Budge stands midway between 
the extremes of Flinders Petrie (5,510) and Sir G. Wilkinson (2,691) but the 
laws of historical evidence do not on that account allow us to regard it as 
anything else than a guess. The conditions required to enable us to reach 
an assured scientific conclusion are these. 

1. The trustworthiness of the List of Manetho. But this list cannot 
be trusted, for one version of it presents us with a list of 561 Kings who reign 
5,524 years, whilst another gives the list as consisting of 361 Kings, who reign 
only 4,480 or 4,780 years. 

2. The list must be shown to be successive. But every leading Egyptologist 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



97 



except Mariette and Flinders Petrie admits that at least one if not six or eight 
of the dynasties were contemporary. 

An attempt has been made to arrive at a Chronology of Egypt by means 
of astronomical observation and calculation. The calendar year of the 
Egyptians, the Vague or Wandering Egyptian year, contained 365 days exactly. 
The Sothic year, so called because it began on the day when the Dogstar Sothis 
or Sirius rose with the sun, was the same as the Julian year, and contained 
365^- days, or very nearly the same as the true tropical Solar year, on which 
the seasons depended. Consequently the 1st of Thoth or New Year's Day 
of each succeeding Vague Egyptian calendar year of 365 days fell J day 
behind the New Year's Day of the Sothic or quasi-Solar year of 365^ days, 
and in the course of 4 X365 or 1,460 years it fell a whole year behind, having 
worked its way back through all the seasons of the year. By reckoning 
1,461 Vague Egyptian Calendar years of 365 days to the Sothic period of 1,460 
Sothic Julian or quasi-Solar years we can translate the dates of the heliacal 
risings of Sothis mentioned in terms of the Vague or Calendar year, into 
the corresponding terms of the ordinary Julian years. We learn from Cen- 
sorinus, who wrote his De die Natali a.d. 238, that one Sothic period came 
to an end in a.d. 139. Hence three such Sothic periods must have begun 
in 4241 B.C. 2781, B.C. andi32i B.C. respectively. The data obtained in this 
way will be reliable in proportion to the trustworthiness of Censorinus and 
the accuracy of the various astronomical observations and calculations involved. 
The evidence can only be dealt with by astronomical experts. It has not 
up to the present time led to any positive chronological result. 

It is abundantly clear that whatever dates may be assigned to the Kings 
and Monuments of Egypt in the British Museum Guide, their authority is 
so much more a matter of subjective assurance than it is of objective certainty, 
that the idea of bringing them forward to controvert the definite chronological 
statements of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament is simply preposterous. 

(2) Babylon. 

The antiquity of Civilization in Babylon can be traced back to the 
establishment of the Kingdom of Nimrod, the son of Cush, the son of Ham. 
the son of Noah, some two generations after the Flood (b.c. 2348, Ussher). 
Out of the land of Shinar, in which Babel or Babylon was situated, went forth 
Asshur (Gen. io 10 - 11 ) the son of Shem, driven out, the narrative suggests, 
by the slave-hunting Nimrod, the grandson of Ham. Asshur went forth out 
of Babylon and builded Nineveh and the other great cities of Assyria to the 
north of Babylon. There was, therefore, according to the Hebrew Record, 
a Semitic period of civilization in Babylon anterior to the Kingdom of Nimrod. 

According to both profane and sacred history the earliest seats of civili- 
zation were Egypt and Babylon. In both these centres writing was practised 
and attention was paid to history, so that when the Greeks, through whom 
our knowledge of them is derived, became acquainted with them, they 
possessed historical records of an antiquity, greater than that which could 
G 



98 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 

be claimed for any documents to be found elsewhere, except the writings of 
the Hebrew Old Testament. These records have been transmitted to us 
in the writings of Manetho the Sebennyte and Berosus the Chaldean. 
Attention was first drawn to the writings of Berosus and Manetho by Scaliger, 
the founder of modern Chronology, and their claims were acknowledged 
by historical critics like Niebuhr. 

Berosus was an educated priest of Babylon, who lived about B.C. 260. 
He wrote in the Greek language three books of Babylonian-Chaldean history, 
in which he professes to derive his information from the oldest temple archives 
of Babylon. The work itself has been lost, but fragments of it have been 
preserved by Josephus, Eusebius, Syncellus and others. The scheme of 
Berosus, as given by Eusebius, in his CJwonicon, is as follows : — 

Babylonian Chronology according to Berosus. 

10 Kings from Alorus, the first man, to Xisuthrus (Noah) 432,000 years 
86 Kings from Xisuthrus to the Median Conquest: 33,080 



8 Median Kings . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 

11 Kings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 

49 Chaldean Kings . . . . . . . . . . 458 

9 Arabian Kings . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 

45 Kings down to Pul . . . . . . . . . . 526 



The number 48 for the eleven Kings is very doubtful. According to the 
native tradition that Babylon was founded 1,903 years before its capture 
by Alexander the Great it should be 258. With this correction the figures 
of Berosus disclose a chronological scheme constructed in such a way as to 
fill the Great Babylonian Year or Cycle of 36,000 years, which is made up of 
the product of the Sossus (60 years) and the Nerus (600 years). Berosus' 
scheme is divided into two parts. The 432,000 years of the ante-diluvian 
dynasties to Xisuthrus or Noah is made up of 12 such cycles, 36,000 xi2 = 
432,000. 

It has been suggested by Gutschmidt that the 36,000 cycle of the 
historical dynasties was probably made up as follows : — 

Babylonian Chronology according to the conjecture of Gutsdimidt. 



Dynasty of 86 Chaldean Kings 34, 080 years 

,, ,, 8 Median Kings . . . . . . 224 

„ 11 Chaldean Kings .. .. .. 258 „ 

„ ,, 49 Chaldean Kings . . . . . . 458 

„ ,, 9 Arabian Kings . . . . . . 245 

45 Assyrian Kings . . . . . . 526 

8 Assyrian Kings . . . . . . 122 

„ ,, 6 Chaldean Kings . . . . . . 67 ,, 



36,000 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 99 



The numbers are unaccompanied by any history, and are at once seen to 
be purely artificial. They may tell us something of the writer's subjective 
thought, but they have no relation to the truth of objective fact. 

The antiquity of Assyria is a matter of dispute between the advocates 
of what is known as the Long Chronology of Ctesias and the Short Chronology 
of Herodotus. 

Herodotus, the oldest Greek historian, usually styled the Father of 
History, was born at Halicarnassus, in Caria, Asia Minor , B.C. 484. According 
to Suidas he died about B.C. 408. He travelled widely in Egypt, Palestine, 
Phoenicia, and even penetrated as far as Babylon and Susa. He also visited 
all the countries situated on the shores of the Black Sea. In the course of 
his history he gives an account of the countries he visited, and whenever 
he gives the results \>f his own observations and enquiries he exhibits a 
wonderful accuracy and impartiality. When he is not an eyewitness he 
usually gives the authority on which he relies for his facts. 

Ctesias of C nidus , in Caria, Asia Minor, was a Greek physician and a historian 
contemporary with Herodotus. In early life he was physician to Artaxerxes 
Mnemon, whom he accompanied in B.C. 401 on his expedition against his 
brother Cyrus the younger. He wrote a history of Assyria and Persia in 
23 books called Persica. As Court Physician to Artaxerxes Mnemon he resided 
for 17 years at the Court of Persia at Susa, where he had many opportunities 
of consulting the Persian royal archives } on which his history is professedly 
founded, whereas Herodotus only paid a flying visit to Babylon and was 
dependent for the most part upon the information given to him by others, 
though he too must have had access to some of the most important documents 
in the archives of the Persian Empire. Ctesias wrote his Persica in order to 
show that Herodotus was a " lying chronicler." Manetho also is said to 
have written a book against Herodotus. Ctesias introduces his work by 
a formal attack upon the veracity of his great predecessor. His history was 
designed to supercede that of Herodotus, and he proceeded to contradict 
him on every point on which he could do so. 

He gives the date of the first establishment of a great Assyrian Empire 
at Nineveh as i^ooo years earlier than Herodotus. Its duration he reckons 
at 1,306 years as against the 520 years of Herodotus. He fixes the date of 
the Median Conquest of Assyria at B.C. 876. Herodotus makes it B.C. 600. 
He gives the duration of the Median Kingdom as 300 years. Herodotus 
gives it as 150 years. 

The Long Chronology of Ctesias, which places the rise of the Assyrian Empire 
at about B.C. 2200, was followed by writers of ancient history like Cephalion, 
Castor, Nicholas of Damascus, Trogus Pompeius, Velleius Paterculus, Josephus, 
Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Augustine, Moses of Chorene, Syncellus, 
Dean Prideaux, Freret, Rollin and Clinton. Other historians have regarded 
his figures as extravagant, and have reduced them by as much as a thousand 
years. 

Among the ancients the scheme of Ctesias was rejected by Aristotle, 
Plutarch, and Arrian. It was, however, widely accepted until the revival of 
learning, when Scaliger turned the scale against him. Scaliger is followed by 



100 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



Volney, Heeren, Niebuhr, Brandis and Rawlinson. Canon Rawlinson says, " It 
is surprising that the ancient Christian Chronologers did not at once see how 
incompatible the scheme of Ctesias is with Scripture. To a man they adopt 
it and then strive to reconcile what is irreconcilable. A comparison with the 
Old Testament Scriptures and with the native history of Berosus first raised 
a general suspicion of bad faith in Ctesias. Freret is the only modern scholar 
of real learning who still maintains the paramount authority of Ctesias. The 
coup de grace has been given to Ctesias by the recent Cuneiform discoveries, 
which convict him of having striven to rise into notice by a system of ' immoral 
lying,' whereunto the history of literature scarcely presents a parallel. The 
Great Assyrian Empire, lasting 1,306 years, is a pure fiction ; his list of monarchs 
from Ninus to Sardanapalus is a forgery made up of names, the mere product 
of his own fancy. He forges names and numbers at pleasure." 

The Persica of Ctesias brings the history of the Persian Empire down to 
the year B.C. 398. The work itself is lost, but we possess abridgments of 
it by Photius, an epitome of the second book by Diodorus Siculus, and numerous 
fragments quoted by Plutarch, Athenaeus and 30 other authors, from 
Xenophon, B.C. 401, to Eustathius, a.d. 1160, whose names are given in the 
excellent collection of the Fragments of the Persica of Ctesias, by John Gilmore 
(Macmillan, 1888). 

On the comparative merits of Herodotus and Ctesias, there has been 
much controversy, both in ancient and in modern times. Herodotus was 
the abler and perhaps the more honest and trustworthy historian. Ctesias 
appears to have had opportunities of access to sources that were denied to 
Herodotus, but we cannot be sure that he made an honest use, and gave a 
true and faithful account of them. 

The classical accounts fix the Era of the Foundation of Babylon at B.C. 
2230. The artificial scheme of Berosus implies a belief that real human history 
had its commencement at Babylon somewhere between 2458 and 2286 B.C. 
The numbers of the Septuagint indicate for the date of Nimrod's Kingdom 
some such date as B.C. 2567. The Hebrew Text places it at two generations after 
the Flood, or, according to Ussher, about B.C. 2218. The fanciful character of 
the Scheme of Berosus, the doubtful nature of the figures given by Ctesias, 
and the artifiically and purposely exaggerated figures of the LXX. leave us 
no choice but that of the Hebrew Text, which points to a date some 100 years 
or more after the Flood. The Monuments do not enable us to carry back 
the history of Babylon farther than to about B.C. 2025. This allows 300 
years for the Semitic Period and 150 for the previous Turanian period, and 
assumes an average of 25 years for the reigns of the 12 Semitic Kings of the 
former period and the 6 Turanian Kings of the latter. 

Mr. E. A. Wallis Budge, in the Introduction to his Guide to the Babylonian 
and Assyrian Antiquities, says the earliest Babylonian Empire was that of 
Sargon of Agade, whose date, according to the cylinder of Nabonidus, would 
be about B.C. 3800 ; but recent excavation and research have shown that the 
scribes of Nabonidus exaggerated the interval between the period of Sargon 
and their own time, and that no means have yet been found for fixing a date 
for these early rulers in place of the traditional one. Assuming the necessity 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 101 



of a lengthy period for the evolution of the complex social system, and the 
highly developed culture of the period of the Sumerian rulers who preceded 
Sargon of Agade, Mr. Budge estimates that the Sumerian Inscriptions point 
to a date as remote as B.C. 4000. 

But, as with all arguments based on the evolutionary hypothesis, the 
conclusion is drawn from the unproved assumption of the infinitely slow and 
gradual rate of the progress made in those early days. From this assumed 
date of about B.C. 4000 Mr. Budge tells us tha+ little or nothing is known of 
the country till we reach the period from 2500 to 2000 B.C., between which 
dates the history of the Monuments begins. 

The date assigned to Sargon of Akkad, B.C. 3800, is obtained from the 
American Excavations of Nippur, where Mr. J. H. Haynes excavated the 
ruins of the Temple of El-Lil, removing layer after layer of debris, and cutting 
sections in the ruin down to the virgin soil. Here some large bricks were 
found stamped with the name of Sargon of Akkad. As the debris above 
them is 34 feet thick, it is calculated that the debris underneath the pavement, 
30 feet thick, must represent a period of 3,000 years (Professor J astro w, in 
Encyclopedia Britannica, nth ed., article Babylonia and Assyria). 

Chronological computations made on this principle, and which assume 
a uniform rate for the deposition of debris, are interesting and valuable, but 
like the similarly obtained geological computations, based on the rate of 
alluvial deposits, they are highly speculative, and cannot claim the character 
of exact scientific statements such as the use of the figures implies. When 
Professor Jastrow comes to deal with the actual chronology of the dynasties 
of the Kings of Babylon, whose names are obtained from the excavated ruins 
of the country, he at once reduces his figures to B.C. 2500. 

The earliest dates assigned by other leading Assyriologists to the 
beginning of civilization in Babylon are as follows : — 

Beginning of Civilization in Babylon according to leading Assyriologists. 



Oppert 
Sayce 
Winckler 
Delitzsch 
Maspero 
Marquart 
Hommel 
Niebuhr 
Hommel (alternatively) 



B.C. 



2506 
m 2478 
» 2425 
,, c. 2420 
2416 
„ 2335 
„ 2223 
•> 2193 
„ 2050 



There is, therefore, nothing in the Literary or the Monumental history 
of the early civilization of Babylon, which was older than Assyria, to require 
us to revise the date assigned to this event in the Hebrew Text, since all the 
earlier dates assigned to it are obtained by methods of computation which 
involve questionable assumptions, and can only yield highly speculativeresults. 

Assyria and Babylon, Egypt and Phoenicia, all alike lay claim to a high 
antiquity. But whilst the literature of these mighty empires has perished, 
the Hebrew Scriptures remain. 



102 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 

(3) Phoenicia. 

Of the events which took place before the Flood there are but few and faint 
memorials among heathen nations. One of the most authentic may be found 
in the remains of the Phoenician History of Sanchoniathon, who is considered 
to be the most ancient writer of the heathen world. His history is said to 
have been composed in the Phoenician language and collected from the archives 
of Phoenician cities. It was translated into Greek by Philo of Byblos, a Syro- 
Phcenician Greek, who wrote in the 2nd century a.d. For the preservation 
of the fragments of the work which remain we are indebted to Eusebius. 
Philo of Byblos professed to be translating an old Phoenician History, composed 
by a native priest called Sanchoniathon, in which he claims precedence for 
Phoenicia as the earliest nation to attain to a knowledge of science, art and 
civilization generally. 

Some suppose that Philo of Byblos was himself the real author of the work. 
The fragments of it which remain consist of a mythical cosmogony, in which 
an account is given of the invention of the arts of hunting, fishing, building, 
architecture, navigation, metallurgy, embroidery and music, in which the 
ancient Phoenicians excelled. But the great glory of the Phoenicians, and 
the most decisive mark of their early civilization, is their invention of the 
art of alphabetic writing. Egypt and Babylon had anticipated them in the 
invention of a method of representing articulate sounds to the eye by means 
of pictures and figures, but the Phoenicians were the first to consummate the 
union of the written and the spoken word. 

Nevertheless^ the claim of Phoenicia to a civilization more ancient than 
that of Egypt or Babylon cannot be sustained. The Monuments of Egypt 
furnish no evidence of Phoenician art or commerce earlier than the 1 8th dynasty, 
though the early Monuments of Egypt give the geography of Syria in great 
detail. " If it be safe/' says Kenrick, " to pronounce in any case on priority of 
knowledge and civilization, it is in awarding Egypt precedence over Phoenicia. 
. . . The commencement of the period of Phoenician commercial activity cannot 
be historically fixed. It may ascend to the years 1600 or 1700 B.C. ; it may be 
several centuries earlier." Canon Rawlinson prefers the later date, and 
concludes that whilst the Phoenicians may have emigrated from the shores 
of the Persian Gulf to those of the Mediterranean as far back as B.C. 1800, 
or even earlier, the rise of Phoenician civilization and the building of the 
old Phoenician capital Sidon, must be placed somewhere about the year 
B.C. 1600. 

(4) China. 

The case for the antiquity of China presents considerable difficulty. 
Dr. Edkins of Pekin, who writes an appendix on the Antiquity of the Chinese 
in Canon Rawlinson's Origin of Nations, concludes that " there is nothing 
in the Chinese classics which demands a longer period for the presence of the 
Chinese in their own country than 2,800 years." In reaching the conclusion 
that early Chinese history requires " a longer Chronology than that which 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 103 



Archbishop Ussher adopted," he is governed not by the evidence of historic 
testimony, but by hypothetical and speculative considerations, such as the 
time required to allow for the natural development of language, and of the 
differences which are found to exist between the different races residing in 
the various climates of our globe. 

Du Halde states that the exact history of China begins with the reign 
of Yaou, B.C. 2357. Other Chinese historians commence their narrative 
of the history of China with the time of Fuhe, B.C. 2852. The reason for this 
extension of the history to a period 500 years earlier was the desire 
to embrace in the history the great legendary personage Fuhe. Confucius 
commences his history proper with the reign of Yaou, B.C. 2357, but he 
speaks of a succession of Wise Men who appeared between B.C. 2852 and 
2357, and taught the arts of writing, hunting, fishing, agriculture, commerce, 
building, etc. These, however, partake of the character of legendary heroes. 
Dr. James Legge, who translated Confucius' Book of History, arrives at 
an unfavourable conclusion as to its historical character. He regarded it as 
half legend, and as containing the names of a number of Emperors which 
were invented by subsequent writers. The credible, self-consistent history 
of ancient China is believed by many to date from no earlier than B.C. 781, 
when the history written by Confucius commences. Mr. Mayers, in his 
Chinese Reader's Manual, treats the history of the period from B.C. 2852 
to 781 as half mythical. He divides it thus : — 

Chinese History. 

B.C. 2852-1154. The legendary period. 
,, 1 1 54 - 781. The semi-historical period. 
,, 781 — . The period of trustworthy history. 

There is, therefore, nothing in the high antiquity of China to conflict with 
the conclusion arrived at by Du Halde, whose admirable work on China stands 
unrivalled for the copiousness and correctness of the information it contains, 
that "two hundred years after the Deluge the sons of Noah arrived in North- 
West China." 

(5) Sir Isaac Newton's " Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended" 

Before dismissing this subject, a reference must be made to that most fasci- 
nating work of Sir Isaac Newton, The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, 
The book was published in 1728, the year after he died. We learn from the 
account which he gave of it, some five months before his death, to his friend 
Dr. Pearce, Bishop of Rochester, that Chronology was a pet subject of his. 
" He had spent 30 years," Dr. Pearce tells us, " at intervals, in reading over 
all the authors, or parts of authors, which could furnish any materials for 
forming a just account of the subject, that he had in his reading made collec- 
tions from these authors, and had at the end of 30 years, composed from them 
his Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms, and that he had written it over sixteen 
times, making few alterations therein, but what were for the sake of shortening 
it, leaving out, in every later copy, some of the authorities and references 



104 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



on which he had grounded his opinion.'" A few days before his death, Bishop 
Pearce visited and dined with him at Kensington. " I found him/" says 
Dr. Pearce, " writing over his Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms without the 
help of spectacles, at the greatest distance in the room from the window, and 
with a parcel of books on the table casting a shade on the table. " Sir," 
said I, " you seem to be writing in a place where you cannot well see." His 
answer was, " Little light serves me." He then told me that he was 
preparing his Chronology for the press, and that he had written the greatest 
part of it for that purpose." 

In this work Sir Isaac Newton brings to bear upon a most intricate and 
difficult subject the wide and long continued reading, the unrivalled astro- 
nomical knowledge and the acute and penetrating insight of an intellectual 
giant. 

His main conclusions, so far as they bear upon the antiquity of man, may 
be briefly summarized as follows :• — 

" Greek Antiquities are full of poetic fictions. They wrote nothing in 
prose before the Conquest of Asia by Cyrus. A little after the death of 
Alexander the Great (B.C. 323) the earliest Greek historians began to set 
down generations, reigns, and successions, and by putting reigns and suc- 
cessions as equipollent to generations, and 3 generations to 100 or 120 years, 
they have made the antiquities of Greece 300 or 400 years older than the truth. 
Eratosthenes wrote about 100 years after the death of Alexander the Great. 
He was followed by Apollodorus, and these two have been followed ever since 
by Chronologers. Plutarch quotes Aristotle as arguing from the Olympic 
disc which had the name of Lycurgus on it, making him contemporary with 
Iphitus and his companion in ordering the Olympic Festivals on the first 
Olympiad, B.C. 776. But Eratosthenes and Apollodorus, and others, computing 
their Chronology by the succession of the Kings of Sparta, make him 100 years 
older. Plutarch relates the unquestionably historic interview of Solon with 
Croesus, but the Chronologers, by their method of computing, make it out that 
he was dead many years before the date of his visit to Croesus." 

" The Chronology of the Latins is still more uncertain. The records 
of the Latins were burnt by the Gauls B.C. 390, i.e. 64 years before the death of 
Alexander the Great, and Quintus Fabius Pictor, the oldest historian of the 
Latins, lived 100 years after that King." 

" The Assyrian Empire began with Pul and Tiglath Pileser, and lasted 
170 years ; accordingly Herodotus made Semiramis only 5 generations, or 
166 years older than Nitocris, the mother of the last King of Babylon. But 
Ctesias made Semiramis 1,500 years older than Nitocris, and feigned a long 
series of Kings in Assyria whose names are not Assyrian, and have no affinity 
with the Assyrian names in Sciipture." 

" The priests of Egypt so magnified their antiquities as to tell Herodotus 
that from Menes to Moeris, whose date is B.C. 755, was 11,000 years, and they 
filled up the interval with feigned Kings who had done nothing, thus making 
the date of Menes and the commencement of civilization in Egypt B.C. 11,755." 

" Eratosthenes and Apollodorus compute the time between the return 
of the Heraclides and the Battle of Thermopylae by the number of the Kings 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 105 



of Sparta, viz. 17, and reckoning 36^ years to each King they make the period 
622 years." 

Newton suggests that 18 or 20 years would be a more accurate estimate, 
and reduces the period to 340 years, a reduction of 278 years. He makes the 
taking of Troy 80 years earlier than the return of the Heraclides. The 
Argonautic Expedition he places a generation before the taking of Troy, 
viz. 33 years instead of 42, and the Wars of Sesostris in Thrace another genera- 
tion, or 28 years instead of 75, before the Argonautic Expedition. Thus : — ■ 

Leading Events of Early Greek History. 

Received Sir Isaac 

Chronology. Newton. 

B.C. B.C. 

Wars of Sesostris . . . . . . . . . . 1300 965 

Argonautic Expedition . . . . . . . . 1225 937 

Taking of Troy . . . . . . . . . . 1183 904 

Return of the Heraclides . . . . . . . . 1103 825 

Battle of Thermopylae . . . . . . . . 480 480 

From Wars of Sesostris to Battle of Thermopylae 820 485 

485 

A difference of . . . . . . . . . . 335 years 



Thus, according to Newton, the Chronologers, by their computation, have 
exaggerated the antiquity of Greek history, and antedated its earlier events 
by 300 or 400 years. 

" The Europeans had no chronology at all before the times of the Persian 
Empire, and whatsoever Chronology thay now have of ancienter times hath 
been framed by reasoning and conjecture. First Pherecydes, the Athenian, 
wrote of the antiquities and ancient genealogies of the Athenians in the reign 
of Darius Hystaspes (B.C. 521-485). He was one of the first European 
writers of this kind, and one of the best. He was followed by Dionysius of 
Halicarnassus, Epimenides the historian, Hellanicus and Hipparchus. Then 
Euphorus, the disciple of Isocrates, formed a Chronology of Greece from the 
return of the Heraclides to the 20th year of Philip of Macedon. These 
all computed the years by the number of generations, or successive priestesses 
of Juno, or Archons of Athens, or Kings of Sparta. The Olympian Era was 
not used at all, and not even mentioned, nor any other Era till after the 
Arundelian Marbles were composed, 60 years after the death of Alexander 
the Great (in the fourth year of Olympiad 128) B.C. 264." 

" Not till the following Olympiad, when Timaeus Siculus wrote his history 
of Greece, was Chronology reduced to a reckoning of years. His Chronology 
was computed in the same way as that of his predecessors, but was expressed 
in terms of four years called Olympiads. Eratosthenes wrote 100 years after 
the death of Alexander the Great (b.c. 220). He was followed by Apollodorus, 
and these two have been followed by Chronologers ever since." 

We see clearly that the basis and foundation on which the structure of 



io6 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



Greek Chronology was erected was largely subjective and fanciful, and we 
readily agree with the conclusion of Newton that, so far as the records of 
the history of the race are concerned, " Mankind cannot be much older than 
is represented in Scripture." 

3. Biblical Criticism and the Historical Character of the Biblical Records. 

We turn now to the department of Biblical Criticism, and to the doubts 
which have been raised as to the historical character of the events recorded 
in the early chapters of Genesis. These chapters have been assimilated to 
the myths and legends which are found in the story of their origins preserved 
by other nations, and accounted for as the product of the mythopoetic faculty 
of primitive man. They have also been shorn of their credentials, and regarded 
as a late compilation by writers who were not contemporary with the events 
they record, and therefore not qualified to give a true account of the events 
which they relate. These conclusions are now widely held by modern Biblical 
scholars. They are not only widely accepted, but they are also being vigorously 
propagated by those who occupy influential positions in the Colleges and 
Universities of England and her Colonies, as well as in all other centres 
of learning in Europe and America. 

Nevertheless they are, in the view of the present writer, not only destitute 
of any reasonable foundation, and incapable of historic proof, but wholly 
unwarranted by the objective facts which have been urged against the 
authenticity of the early chapters of Genesis. 

The method of the Higher Criticism as practised by its leading exponents, 
and the presuppositions involved in it as explained by them, are such as to 
exclude the possibility of arriving at a true estimate of the real value and 
authority of the Old Testament Scriptures. The Old Testament is nothing 
if it is not a revelation and a record of a Divine movement in human history, 
involving, in a very direct and special way, the universal sovereignty and the 
immediate activity of God, with a view to the redemption of man. Never- 
theless the fundamental postulate of one of the leading advocates of the method 
is that no such activity can be admitted in any one single instance. 

" So soon," says Kuenen, "as we derive a separate part of Israel's religious 
life directly from God, and allow the supernatural or immediate revelation 
to intervene in even a single point, so long our view of the whole continues 
to be incorrect. It is the supposition of a natural development alone which 
accounts for all the phenomena." This applies not merely to the early chapteis 
of Genesis, but even to the very words of our Lord Himself and His 
interpretation of Old Testament passages ; for, in his work on Prophets and 
Prophecy, Kuenen says, "We must either cast aside as worthless our dearly 
bought scientific method, or must for ever cease to acknowledge the authority 
of the New Testament in the domain of the exegesis of the Old." This means, 
of course, that the said scientific method is of such a nature that it cannot 
possibly be applied without coming into conflict with, the interpretation 
placed upon the Old Testament by our Lord and His Apostles, an 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 107 



interpretation so sure that if their testimony cannot be accepted on this point, 
it is quite certain that no other testimony can be accepted on any point 
whatsoever. 

This fundamental postulate of Kuenen's, the impossibility of admitting 
the truth of any narrative which contains an element of the miraculous, rules 
out of existence the very thing which constitutes the distinctive characteiistic 
of the Old Testament, and makes it different from every other literature in 
the world : its story of the creative, selective, directive, redemptive activity 
of God, both mediate and immediate, in the history of the human race. To 
postulate the absence from the literature of the Old Testament of an element 
which constitutes its distinctive characteristic, is to shut the door in the face 
of truth, and to make a scientific study of the literature impossible. 

There are, however, other critics who admit the possibility and the actuality 
of the miraculous, and yet regard the early chapters of Genesis as unhistorical. 

The more carefully these chapters are studied and compared with the 
mythical and legendary accounts of the origins of the race in other literatures, 
the more striking will be the contrast between them. One cannot read these 
chapters aright without being struck with the unique grandeur and sublimity 
of their language, and filled with wonder and amazement at the marvel and 
the glory of their message and content. 

No one can place them side by side with the mythical accounts of other 
religions without being struck by the incomparable distinction which lifts 
them out of the class and category of all other writings, and proclaims them 
of another origin, and of another kind. And the one palpable difference 
between these chapters and all other forms of religious literature is the fact 
of their objective, historical character. The religions of Greece and Rome, 
of Egypt and Persia, of India and the East, did not even postulate a historical 
basis. The mythical period of the Greeks, though similar in form, was 
distinct in kind from the historic, the objective reality of the scenes and events 
described as belonging to each period was not even conceived of as belonging 
to the same order, or as being of the same kind. It is quite otherwise with 
the religion of the Old Testament. There the doctrine is bound up with the 
facts, and is so absolutely dependent upon them that without them it is null 
and void. If there is no first Adam there is no second Adam. The facts 
are the necessary substratum of the truths or doctrines of the Old Testament, 
as the truths or doctrines are the necessary substratum of the duties that 
arise out of them. The Chronology of the Old Testament is in strongest 
contrast with that of all other nations. From the Creation of Adam to the 
death of Joseph the Chronology is defined with the utmost possible precision, 
and only toward the end of the narrative of the Old Testament do doubts 
and difficulties and uncertainties arise. With all other Chronologies the case 
is exactly the reverse. They have no beginning. They emerge from the 
unknown, and their earliest dates are the haziest and the most uncertain, 
instead of being the clearest and the most sure. If the trustworthiness of 
testimony and the canons of credibility are accepted, the early chapteis of 
Genesis will answer every legitimate test that can be applied to the deter- 
mination of their genuine historical character. 



io8 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch has long since been abandoned 
by many modern students of Biblical literature, and replaced by a theory 
of composite authorship and late compilation. The present writer believes 
that all the facts which have been pointed to in support of the new theory 
are susceptible of another interpretation consistent with the testimony of 
Scripture to the Mosaic authorship of these books. 

It is nowhere directly stated, either in the Old Testament or the New, that 
Moses wrote the Book of Genesis, but it is everywhere affirmed that he is the 
author of the Book of the Law, of which the Book of Genesis is an integral 
part. In support of this we have the testimony of the Pentateuch itself. 
It is attributed to him five times in Exodus, once in Leviticus, twice in 
Numbers, and three times in Deuteronomy, where he is said to have spoken 
94% of the words which the book contains. We have also the testimony 
of the rest of the Old Testament. It is attributed to him by Joshua, by the 
writers of i and 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel and MalachL 
We have again the testimony of the New Testament writers in John, in the 
Acts, in 2 Corinthians and in Hebrews. Twice it is attributed to Moses 
by our Lord Himself. We have the continuous, unbroken testimony of the 
entire Jewish nation and the Christian Church for 3,500 years, an array of 
positive evidence which ought by all the canons of Historical Criticism to 
make the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch an indubitable historical 
fact. 

This conclusion is corroborated by the futility of the arguments that have 
been advanced against it. For instance, it is said (1) that Moses was not a 
writer but a man of action. But since all that we know of Moses is derived 
from the Old Testament, which says he was a writer, the argument not only 
fails, but discloses the frame of mind of the objector, which is that of a man 
who seeks to impose his views upon the facts instead of deriving his views 
from them. 

Again, it is said, (2) since the pre-exilic writers do not quote the Priestly 
Code, it was not in existence till after the date of the return from the exile. 
But the fact is that they do quote it over and over again, e.g. in Amos 5 21 , 
as frequently as they have any occasion to do so. " Genesis is referred to 
149 times ; Exodus, 312 ; Leviticus, 285 ; Numbers, 168 ; while Deuteronomy 
is referred to 617 times." (Companion Bible, Appendix 92). 

Again, it is urged, (3) that the state of religious culture was such that it 
could not have been produced in that early and barbarous age. But this 
is to beg the very question that has to be proved. The age of Moses was 
a highly civilized age, an age of schools, books and libraries, of an advanced 
stage of engineering, art and culture. Moreover the objection rests upon the 
highly speculative and unverified assumption that the more primitive the 
period the more it approximates to the condition of barbarism and savagery. 

Finally, it is said that the Pentateuch is not by any one author, but is 
the composite work of many authors represented by the symbols J., E., JE., 
D., H., P., R 1 ., R 2 ., R 3 ., etc. whose hand can be traced in the various layers or 
strata, still visible in the closely knit, but still composite work, as it stands to- 
day. This theory has passed through six stages known as (1) the Document, 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 109 



(2) the Fragment, (3) the Supplement, (4) the Crystallization, (5) the Modified 
Document, and (6) the Development Theory, each succeeding stage antiquating 
and disproving the truth of its predecessor. 

Considerable use is made of the fact that in different passages different 
names of the Divine Being are used, as e.g. in Gen. 1-2 4 the name Elohim 
or God ; in Gen. 2 4 ~3 24 the name Jehovah Elohim, or Lord God, and in Gen. 4 
the name Jehovah or Lord, these three passages being on these and other 
grounds attributed to three distinct authors. 

But the facts as observed and stated are susceptible of another interpreta- 
tion. The name Elohim (God) is always used when the reference is to the Deity 
in relation to the universe and man, as their Creator, and the word Jehovah 
(Lord) is similarly always used when the relation is that of Moral Governor 
and Responsible Agent, or that of rule and obedience to Moral Law or Divine 
Command ; just as we use the word Emperor instead of King for the Sovereign 
of England in relation to the Dependency of India. Similarly the name 
Elyon, translated Most High, is never used of the Divine Being except in relation 
to his sway over all the peoples of the earth. The names of the Divine Being 
are always used with a distinction of meaning, and application, and do not in 
any case suggest differences of authorship. The law of Recurrence, the Law 
•of Synthetic Structure, the Law of Double Reference and the Law of the use 
of the Divine and other names, account for the facts adduced, far better than 
the hypothesis of composite authorship. The facts are admitted, but they 
■do not support the theory. 

A glance at the following diagram will show the relation in which the 
several theories of composite authorship that have been advanced, stand to 
each other. 



no THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



MOSAIC v. COMPOSITE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

The Six Hypotheses of the Advocates of Composite Authorship. 



i. DOCUMENT (Vitringa. Astruc. Eichhorn. 
J 

I 



2. FRAGMENT 
(Vater. Hartmann.) 



3. SUPPLEMENT 
(Bleek. De Wette.) 

I 

4. CRYSTALLIZATION (Ewald) 



5. MODIFIED DOCUMENT 
(Hupfeld). 



EVOLUTION. 



6. DEVELOPMENT. 

I 



ADVOCATES. 
Kuenen. 
Graf. 

Wellhausen. 
Reuss. 
Cornill. 
Stade. 
Gunkell. 

W. Robertson Smith. 
George Adam Smith. 
Cheyne. 
Driver. 
American — Briggs. 



Dutch— 
German- 



Scotch — 



English- 



I 

OPPONENTS. 
German — ■ Dillman. 

Delitzsch. 
Havernack. 
Hengstenberg. 
Konig. 
Zahn. 

Scotch — ■ James Robertson. 

James Orr. 
English — ■ Cave. 

Ellicott. 

Lex Mosaica. 
American — W. H. Green. 



It will be noticed that the present theory not only gathers up in a com- 
prehensive way the main features of three of the other theories, but derives 
its present plausibility and maintains its hold on the minds of the present 
generation of Biblical scholars, by incorporating the Doctrine of Evolution. 
The unverified assumptions and the highly speculative and hypothetical 
character of this doctrine render any statement into which it enters liable 
to subtle errors, which escape the notice and elude the attention of the unwary. 

The positive evidence or testimony of the writers of the Old Testament 
in favour of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, may be briefly sum- 
marised as follows : — • 

I. The Formation of the Book of the Law of Moses. 

1. There was a definite book called the Book of the Law. (Josh. 1 8 ). 

2. It was commenced by Moses in obedience to the command of God 

(Ex. 17 14 ). 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. hi 



3. It contained the 10 Commandments, and the Book of the Covenant 

in Horeb in Ex. 20-23 (Ex. 24 4_7 ). 

4. It contained the renewed Tables of the Law and God's Covenant 

with Moses in Ex. 34 (Ex. 34 27 ). 

5. It contained an account of the journeys of Israel during the 40 years 

in the wilderness (Numb. 33 s ). 

6. It contained the whole of Deuteronomy except the last chapter 

(Deut. 1 5 where to " declare " means to "set forth in writing "). 

7. It contained the Song of Moses in Deut. 32, which Moses taught 

to the Children of Israel (Deut 3i 22 -3 0^ 

8. The limits of the Book were strictly defined (Deut. 4 2 ). 

This Book of the Law formed the basis of the whole of the Old Testament. 
It was expounded and applied to the life of the nation by the Prophets, and 
to the life of the individual by the writers of the remaining books of the Old 
Testament. 

II. The Custody of the Book of the Law of Moses. 

1. Moses wrote it and placed it in the custody of the Priests, who placed 

it by the side of the Ark (Deut. 31 9 , 31 24 " 26 ). 

2. The King had to make a copy of it for himself (Deut. 17 18 ). 

3. The Priests had to read it in the hearing of all Israel once every 

seven years (Deut 3i 10_11 ). 

4. It came into the custody of Joshua (Josh. 1 8 ). 

5. Joshua wrote a copy of it upon the stones of an altar in Mount Ebal 

(Josh. 8 31 - 35 ). 

6. Just before his death Joshua directed all Israel to do all that was 

written in it (Josh. 23 2 ~ 6 ). 

III. Subsequent additions to the Books of the Law of Moses. 

1. It was constantly added to by inspired men of later date, who received 

what they wrote, as Moses received what he wrote, direct from 
the Lord (Josh. 24 2 6 , 1 Sam. 10 25 ). 

2. Joshua himself wrote something in it in continuation of the history 

it contained, probably Deut. 34 and Joshua 1 to 24 28 (Josh. 24 2 6 ). 

3. Samuel continued the writing in the Book, and retained custody 

of it. He probably wrote Josh. 24 29 " 33 , the story of Joshua's 
death, the whole of Judges, the Book of Ruth, and 1 Samuel 1-24 
(1 Sam. 10 2 5 , where the "manner of the kingdom" means 
the constitutional limits of the newly established monarchy, 
and "a book " should be " the book") 

IV. The Transmission of the Book of the Law of Moses. 

1. David had a copy of it, and gave one to Solomon (1 K. 2 1-3 ). 

2. Jehoshaphat had a copy of it and sent men throughout the length 

and breadth of his Kingdom to teach it to the people 
(2 Chron. 17 7 ~ 9 ). 



112 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



3. A copy of the Book was given to Joash at his coronation (2 Chron. 23 1 1 ). 

4. Amaziah had a copy, and acted upon instructions contained in it 

(2 Chron. 25 4 , cp. Deut. 24 16 ). 

5. In the reign of Josiah whilst the Temple was being repaired, Hilkiah 

the Priest discovered a copy of the long lost Book of the Law 
(2 Chron. 34 14 ). 

6. Josiah had a copy, and observed the Passover in accordance with 

the directions contained in it (2 Chron. 35 6 ). 

7. Ezra had a copy, which he described by various names, (Ez. 3 2 , 6 18 , 

8. Nehemiah had a copy, which he described in different ways 

(Neh. 8 14 10 29 , 13 1 ). 

9. Daniel had a copy of it (Dan. 9 11 ). 
10. Malachi had a copy of it (Mai. 4 4 ). 

Throughout the whole period of the Old Testament from Moses to Malachi, 
the Book of the Law, which consisted of the five Books of the Pentateuch, 
and always included Genesis, was regarded as the genuine work of Moses, 
divinely authoritative and historically true. It continued to be so regarded 
by our Lord and his Apostles, by the whole Jewish nation, and by the entire 
Christian Church, until the beginning of last century, and it is so regarded 
to-day by those who accept the Canons of Credibility and believe the testimony 
of the witnesses who have certified its truth. 

But testimony is never of such a character as to compel belief, it never 
amounts to demonstration, and it is always liable to be rejected when it comes 
into conflict with rationalistic, subjective presuppositions, which do not allow 
the mind to attach due weight and authority to the objective truth and value 
of the testimony of competent witnesses. 

The book of Genesis, in these early chapters, deals with events that took 
place so early in the history of the human race that if we do not accept this 
testimony we are absolutely without any trustworthy and reliable history 
of the period which they cover. But allowance being made for the distance 
at which we stand from the period to which these chapters relate, and the 
tendency of time to destroy all manner of evidence, whether documentary 
or otherwise, which we might justly require in the case of more recent events, 
the wonder and the marvel is that so unique an account of the first 2,000 
years of the history of the race remains with us to this day, fulfilling all the 
Canons of Credibility, and commending itself to our intelligent acceptance, 
as a truly historical record of a great but vanished past. That Moses 
incorporated earlier written records in the book of Genesis is proved bv the 
express testimony of Gen. 5 1 . 

We have now compared the Chronology of the period from Adam to 
Abraham as given in the book of Genesis, with all the evidence that can 
be alleged against its truth from the standpoint of Evolutionary Biology, 
Geology, Archaeology, and Biblical Criticism, and after duly weighing, and 
carefully sifting, all the arguments adduced, we find that the attack has failed 
on every hand. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 113 



Returning to the study of the genuineness of the Record, on the positive 
side, we find it is amply attested by an incomparable array of incorruptible 
witnesses, and we proceed to the investigation of the next period of the 
Chronology, with the assurance that the foundations of the same, having been 
" well and truly laid," will bear the weight of any superstructure that may 
be placed upon it. 



Chapter X. The Hebrew Patriarchs — Abraham, Isaac, Jacob 

and Joseph. 

(an. hom. 2008-2369). 

The theme of the Old Testament is the purpose of God in Redemption. The 
early chapters of Genesis, which deal with the creation of the world and the 
fall of man, are introductory and preliminary. The first eleven chapters 
cover a period of time which is almost exactly equal to that covered by the 
remainder of the whole Bible, including the last book in the New Testament. 
It is a marvel of condensation. Its brevity precludes the application of the 
argument from silence. It is impossible to say that because things are not 
mentioned here, the author was not aware of them, or that they did not exist. 
The plan of the writer is selective. His history of these 2,000 years is little 
more than a genealogical chart, and that, for the most part, he traces only 
in one line of descent, through Seth and through Noah to Abraham, the father 
of the chosen race. There are indeed not a few precious fragments of 
historic truth respecting the origins of other nations, but they are not followed 
up. From the very beginning the centre of interest is the Messiah, who is 
first promised as the Seed of the woman in the protevangelium, Gen. 3 15 , 
and it is along the line of the ancestry of the Messiah that the early Chronology 
and the related history is given. 

The Chronology of the remaining portion of Genesis is given on the same 
principles as that of the first eleven chapters. It follows the line of Abraham, 
through Isaac and Jacob and Joseph. As it is with the ante-diluvian and 
the post-diluvian Patriarchs, so it is with the Hebrew Patriarchs. The 
method adopted for measuring the time is that of giving the age of the 
father at the birth of his son, until we reach the name of Joseph. The age 
of Jacob at the birth of Joseph is nowhere directly stated, but it can be 
ascertained by an arithmetical calculation, or a historical induction. 

We begin with the result reached in chapter 5. Abraham was born when 
Terah was 130, in the year an. hom. 2008. When Terah died, at the age of 
205, Abraham left Haran, in obedience to the call of God, at the age of 75, in 
the year an. hom. 2083 (Gen. n 32 , 12 \ Acts 7 4 ). 

The following Table shows the Chronology of the Hebrew Patriarchs from 
the birth of Abraham to the death of Joseph, as given in Genesis, chapters 
11-50. 



H 



H4 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



The Hebrew Patriarchs — Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. 
From the Birth of Abraham to the Death of Joseph. 

an. hom. 

2008. Abram born (see Chapter 8). 
75. Add age of Abram when he received the call from God (Gen. 11 32 , 
is 1 , Acts 7 4 ). 

2083. Call of Abram, in obedience to which he left Haran and came into 
Canaan, immediately after the death of his father Terah. 
10. Add 10 years to Abram's marriage with Hagar (Gen. 16 3 ). 

2093. Abram, aged 85, married Hagar. 

1. Add 1 year to birth of Ishmael, Abram 86 (Gen. 16 16 ). 

2094. Ishmael born. Abram 86. 

14. Add 14 years to birth of Isaac (Gen. 21 5 ). 
2108. Isaac born. Abraham 100. 

Add 5 years to the great feast when Isaac was weaned, and became 
Abraham's SEED and HEIR. Ishmael cast out (Gen. 21 8 10 ). 
This took place 400 years before the Exodus (Gen. 15 13 , Acts 7 6 ). 
The Exodus was 430 years after the call (Gen 12 1 ), promise 
(Gen. 12 3 , Gal. 3 1 7 ) and covenant (Gen. 15 13 ) of God with Abraham 
, at the commencement of his sojourn, when he was 75 (Gen. 12 4 ). 
Therefore the date of the Exodus was 2083 +430= an. hom. 2513 
(Ex. 12 40, 41 ). Therefore the 400 years sojourn of the SEED of 
Abraham commenced 2513-400 = an. hom. 2113, when Isaac was 
5. 5 years old. 

2113. Isaac weaned at the age of 5, when he became Abraham's SEED and 
HEIR, Ishmael being cast out. 
32. Add 32 years to the death of Sarah. 

Sarah was 90 at the birth of Isaac (Gen. 17 11 , 21 5 ). 

Sarah died at the age of 127 (Gen. 23 1 ), the only woman whose 

age is given in Scripture. 
Therefore Isaac was 127 - 90=37 when Sarah died. 

2145. Sarah died aged 127. 

3. Add 3 years to the marriage of Isaac at the age of 40 (Gen. 25 20 ). 

2148. Isaac married at the age of 40. 

20. Add 20 years to the birth of Esau and Jacob (Gen 25 26 ). 

2168. Esau and Jacob born. Isaac aged 60. 

15. Add 15 years to the death of Abraham at the age of 175 (Gen. 25 7 ). 

2183. Abraham died aged 175 (20084-175=2183). 

25. Add 25 years to the marriage of Esau at the age of 40 (Gen. 26 3 4 ) 
(21684-40=2208). 

2208. Esau married at the age of 40. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



2208. Esau married at the age of 40. 

Add 37 years to the day when Jacob left home. 
Jacob left home at the age of 77 (2168 + 77=2245). 

Joseph stood before Pharaoh, aged 30 (Gen. 41 46 ). 

,At the end of 7 years' plenty Joseph was 37 (Gen. 4i 2 9,30 ). 

At the end of 2 years' famine, when Jacob came down into Egypt, 

Joseph was 39 (Gen. 45 6 ). 
At the end of 2 years' famine, when Jacob came down into 

Egypt, Jacob was 130 (Gen. 47 s ). 
[Therefore Jacob was 130 when Joseph was 39. 

91 „ „ „ born. 
Jacob had served Laban 14 years when Joseph was born (Gen. 30 25 ). 
[Therefore Jacob was 91 - 14=77 when he left home for Padan 
'37. Aram. 
2245. Jacob left home for Padan Aram aged 77. 

7. Add 7 years to Jacob's marriage. Jacob married both Leah and 
Rachel at the same time. He served 7 years for Leah before his 
marriage and 7 years more for Rachel after it (Gen. ?.g 21 ~ 28 - 30 , 

20 1- 2 2. 2 5. 2 6.^! 3 8-41) 

2252. Jacob at the age of 84 married both Leah and Rachel. 

7. Add 7 years to the birth of Joseph (Gen. 30 25 - 26 , 31 38-41) 
2259. Joseph born. Jacob 91 (Gen. 30 25 , 3i 38 ~ 41 ). 

6. Add 6 years to the time when Jacob returned to Canaan aged 97 
(Gen. 31 41 ). 

2265. Joseph aged 6. Jacob returns to Canaan aged 97. 

24. Add 24 years to the time when Joseph stood before Pharaoh, aged 30. 
(Gen. 41 46 ). 



2289. Joseph stood before Pharaoh at the beginning of the 7 years of plenty, 
aged 30 (Gen. 41 4 6 ). 
7. Add 7 years of plenty. Joseph aged 37 (Gen. 41 47 ). 
2296. At the end of 7 years of plenty Joseph aged 37 (Gen. 41 47 ). 

2. Add 2 years of famine when Jacob went down into Egypt (Gen. 45 s ). 
2298. At the end of 2 years of famine Jacob went down into Egypt, aged 130. 
Joseph aged 39 (Gen. 45 6 , 47 s ). 
17. Add 17 years to the death of Jacob (Gen. 47 2 8 ). 
2 3 I 5- Jacob died aged 147 (21684-147 = 2315). Joseph 56 (Gen. 47 28 ). 

54. Add 54 years to the death of Joseph (Gen. 50 26 ). 
2369. Joseph died aged no (22594-110=2369) (Gen. 50 26 .) 

Each step in the progress of the Chronology is clearly explained in the 
above table, and the " proof " is given in the " testimony " of the text of 
Scripture cited. These proof texts are the historical data with which the 
science of Chronology is built up. The result arrived at is characterized 
by the accuracy and certainty of an exact science. It cannot be one year 
more. It cannot be one year less. This is so mathematically exact and 
so absolutely certain, that since Ussher proved that Terah was 130 when 



n6 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



Abram was born, no Chronologer, who accepts the text of the Old Testament, 
has ever made the period covered by the Book of Genesis from the Creation 
of Adam to the death of Joseph anything else but 2,369 years. The only 
exception is R. G. Faussett, who supposes that Abraham left Haran, not as 
Scripture says, when his father Terah died, but after an interval of 2 years. 

The motive for this alteration is to provide the author with materials 
to illustrate his theory of the symmetry of time, so that e.g. each of the 21 
7-year periods of Jacob's life may coincide with a year an. hom. divisible by 
the number 7. Thus e.g. he would be born in the year an. hom. 2170 =7 X310, 
instead of in the year an. hom. 2168. The temptation is great, but it is the very 
thing against which Chronologers must guard. No preconceived scheme, 
whether millennial, septenary, or of any other kind, must be allowed to warp 
the facts or to bend the figures into any particular symmetrical shape. The • 
sole criterion of chronological truth is evidence, testimony, fact. Another 
motive for carrying the Chronology forward by 2 years is that Isaac may be 
3 years old, instead of 5 years old, when he is weaned, 3 being the usual age 
at which children are weaned in the East, when the birth of one child is not 
soon followed by the birth of another (see 2 Mace, y 21 , "My son, have pity 
on thy mother that gave thee suck 3 years," and cp. 1 Sam. 1 21 ~ 23 Josephus, 
Antiq. II. 9.6). The alteration does not affect the Chronology ultimately, for 
Faussett deducts the added two years from the interval between the death 
of Joseph and the birth of Moses, meanwhile every event from the birth of 
Abraham (an. hom. 2010 instead of 2008) to the death of Joseph (an. hom. 
2371 instead of 2369) is placed 2 years too late. 

We have now reached the epoch of the two promises (1) to Abraham's 
seed and (2) to Abraham himself, in connection with which, periods of 400 
and 430 years are mentioned. It will be worth while for us to set out 
these two periods in detail. 

The 430 years of Exodus 12 4 ° - 41 and Gal. 3 17 

Exodus 12 4 °* 4 4 " Now the sojourning of the children of Israel (who 

dwelt in Egypt) was 430 years. And it came to pass at the end of 

the 430 years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts 

of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt." 
Gal. 3 17 . "The Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, 

the law, which was 430 years after, could not disannul." 

This sojourning includes the whole period from the call of Abram 
(Gen. 12 1 ) and the promise (Gen. 12 3 ) and the confirmation of the 
promise by a covenant (Gen. 15 13 18 ) to the going up out of Egypt, 
within 2 months of which the Law was given on Sinai. 

From the call, promise and covenant of Gen. 12 1_3 , 

Gen. 15 13 " 18 , Gal. 3 17 = 2083 

To the going up out of Egypt, and the giving of the 

Law on Sinai, Ex. 12 40 41 , 19 12 , Gal. 3 17 .. .. = 2513 

years 430 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 117 



The 400 years of Gen. 15 13 and Acts 7 6 . 

Gen. 15 13 . "And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that 
thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, 
(and shall serve them ; 
and they shall afflict them) ; 
four hundred years." 

Acts 7 6 . Stephen's speech—" And God spake on this wise, That 
his seed should sojourn in a strange land 

(and they should bring them into bondage ; 
and entreat them evil) ; 
four hundred years." 

Abraham's seed here means Abraham's posterity, viz. Isaac from the time 
that he was weaned, and became Abraham's heir (Gal. 3 29 -4 5 ) and 
Isaac's descendants. 

1. They were strangers and sojourners in Canaan (a land not theirs). 
From the weaning of Isaac and the casting out of 

Ishmael (Gen. 21 10 ) .. .. .. .. .. =2113 

To the going down into Egypt (Gen. 47 s ) . . . . = 2298 

815 

2. They were in favour in Egypt (a land not theirs) 
From the going down into Egypt 

(Gen. 47 9 ) = 2298 

To the death of Joseph (Gen. 50 26 ) = 2369 = 71 

3. They were brought into bondage and 

affliction in Egypt, 
From the death of Joseph Gen. 50 26 ) = 2369 
To the Exodus (Ex. 12 40 - 41 ) =2513 =144 215 

years 400 

The structure of Gen. 15 13 and Acts 7 6 shows that the first line corresponds 
with the fourth line, the second and third lines being a parenthesis, so that 
the term " 400 years " refers to the whole period of the sojourning in Canaan 
as well as in Egypt, and not to the sojourning in Egj^pt alone. 



The 430 years of Ex. 12 40 is 30 years longer than the 400 years of Gen. 15 13 , 
because it includes the sojourning of Abraham himself as well as that of his 
SEED. By a figure of speech the term " children of Israel " is made to 
include Abraham himself. So Milton speaks of " Eve the fairest of all her 
daughters." 



n8 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



DETAILS OF THE TWO PERIODS OF 400 & 430 YEARS. 





The 


The 


PERIODS. 


400 


43° 




years. 


years. 




From the call, promise and covenant of Abram to the marriage 







of Hagar 




10 


From the marriage of Hagar to the birth of Ishmael 




1 


From the birth of Ishmael to the birth of Isaac 




14 


From the birth of Isaac to his being weaned and becoming the seed 






at the casting out of Ishmael (Gen. 21 8 - 10 ) 




5 


From the weaning of Isaac, when he became the seed to the going 






down into Egypt 


185 


i85 


From the going down into Egypt to the Exodus — (to make up the 




215 


400 years of Gen. 15 13 and the 430 years of Ex. 12. * 0,41 ) 


215 


215 




400 


430 



The method of fixing the date of the weaning of Isaac is strictly logical 
and mathematically exact. We begin with the call, promise, covenant or 
sojourning of Abraham, which took place immediately after the death of Terah, 
AN. hom. 2083. There is the direct and positive testimony of the Hebrew Text 
for the fact that the period from that point to the Exodus was a period of 
430 years ; therefore the date of the Exodus must be 2083 + 430=an. hom. 
2513. We have again the direct and positive testimony of the Hebrew Text 
for the fact that the SEED of Abraham should be strangers and sojourners 
for a period of 400 years. That period ended with the Exodus, an. hom. 2513. 
Therefore it began 2513 - 400=2113, and since Isaac was born an. hom. 2108, 
he was then 5 years old. But Isaac became the sole HEIR (with which we 
may connect the word SEED) of Abraham on the day that he was weaned. 
On that day Abraham made him a great feast, to celebrate the event. Ishmael 
was Abraham's heir no longer. Isaac had taken his place. He mocked, and 
was cast out. 

Some difficulty has been felt in reconciling the various statements of the 
number of the children of Israel who went down into Egypt, viz. the 66, the 
70 and the 75 of Gen. 46 2 6 - 2 7 and Acts 7 1 4 , and also in understanding how 
Jacob's great grandson Hamul, and Ard the youngest son of Benjamin, could 
have been born at the time when Jacob went down into Egypt, as Jacob was 
then only 130 years old. The following Tables will make these matters quite 
clear. They do not give a definite historical induction showing the exact 
date of the birth of Jacob's sons and grandsons. The}' are not therefore 
included in the Chronological Tables (Vol. II) which contain only those dates 
which are definitely fixed and demonstrably true. They are a demonstration 
of the possibility of ranging the events recorded within the limits of the 130 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



years of Jacob's life, without postulating any departure from the ordinary 
course of nature respecting the age of puberty and the laws of human 
generation. 



THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL WHICH CAME INTO EGYPT. 

Gen. 46 5 " 27 , Acts 7 14 . 







THE 

66 


THE 
70 


THE 

75 


The Sons of Leah — Gen. 46 8-1 5 . 


— 





— 


1. 


Reuben . . 


I 


I 


I 




2. Hanoch 


I 


I 


I 




3. Phallu 


I 


I 


I 




4. Hezron 


I 


I 


I 




5. Carmi 


I 


I 


I 


6. 


Simeon 


I 


I 


I 




7. Jemuel 


I 


I 


I 




8. Jamin 


I 


I 


I 




9. Ohad 


I 


I 


I 




10. Jachin 


I 


I 


I 




11. Zohar 


I 


I 


I 




12. Shaul 


I 


I 


I 


13. 


Levi 


I 


I 


I 




14. Gershon 


I 


I 


I 




15. Kohath 


I 


I 


I 




16. Merari 


I 


I 


I 


17. Judah 


I 


I 


I 




18. Er — not included in either — died in Canaan 


- 


— 


— 




19. Onan — not included in either — died in Canaan 










20. Shelah 


I 


I 


I 




21. Pharez [sons of Judah| 


I 


I 


I 




22. Zarah j by Tamar j 


I 


I 


I 




23. Hezron j sons of| 


I 


I 


I 




24. Hamulj Pharez j 


I 


I 


I 


25. 


Issachar 


I 


I 


I 




26. Tola 


I 


I 


I 




27. Phuvah 


I 


I 


I 




28. Job 


I 


I 


I 




29. Shimron 


I 


I 


I 


30. Zebulon 


I 


I 


I 




31. Sered 


I 


I 


I 




32. Elon . . . . . . 


I 


I 


I 




33. Jahleel 


I 


I 


I 



Carried forward 31 31 31 



120 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



THE 

66 

Brought forward 31 

Dinah — Gen. 46 1 5 . . 1 

The Sons of Zilpah, Gen. 46 16 " 18 . 

1. Gad . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

2. Ziphion . . . . . . . . . . 1 

3- Haggi 1 

4. Shuni . . . . . . . . . . 1 

5. Ezbon . . . . . . . . . . 1 

6. Eri . . . . . . . . . . 1 

7. Arodi . . . . . . . . . . 1 

8. Areli 1 

9. Asher . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

10. Jimnah . . . . . . . . . . 1 

11. Ishuah . . . . . . . . . . 1 

12. Isui . . . . . . . . . . 1 

13. Beriah . . . . . . . . . . 1 

14. Serah (their sister) . . . . . . 1 

15. Heber f sons of 1 . . . . 1 

16. Malchielj Beriah j . . . . 1 

The Sons of Rachel — Gen. 46 19-22 . 

1. Joseph — not included in the 66. Already in Egypt - 

2. Manasseh — not included in the 66. ,, 

3. Ephraim — not included in the 66. ,, - 
4. Benjamin . . . . . . . . . . 1 

5. Belah 1 

6. Becher . . . . . . . . . . 1 

7. Ashbel . . . . . . . . . . 1 

8. Gera . . . . . . . . . . 1 

9. Naaman . . . . . . . . . . 1 

10. Ehi . . . . . . . . . . 1 

11. Rosh . . . . . . . . . . 1 

12. Muppim . . . . . . . . . . 1 

13. Huppim . . . . . . . . . . 1 

14. Ard 1 



Carried forward 59 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 121 



THE THE THE 

66 70 75 



The Sons of Bilhah — Gen. 46 23-25 . 
1. Dan 

2. Hushim 
3. Naphtali 

4. Jahzeel 

5. Guni 

6. Jezer 

7. Shillem 



" All the Souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, 
which came out of his loins, besides jacob's 
sons' wives" (Gen. 46 26 ) = .. 



Brought forward 59 62 62 



66 



Jacob himself (Gen. 46 8 ) 

"All the Souls of the house of Jacob which came 
into Egypt" (Gen. 46 2 7 ) = 

After " Ephraim," in Gen. 46 20 the LXX. (Septuagint) , 
the Greek translation of the Old Testament used 
by Stephen, adds two sons of Manasseh and three 
sons of Ephraim, viz. 

The sons of Manasseh 
1. Machir 

2. Gilead, (son of Machir). . 
The sons of Ephraim. 

1. Shuthelah 

2. Talhath 

3. Edem (or Bered or Becher), son of Shuthelah 
" Jacob and all his Kindred" (Acts 7 14 ) 



70 



1 
1 

1 
1 
1 

75 



PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE RELATING TO THE CHILDREN 
OF ISRAEL WHICH CAME INTO EGYPT. 

The 66 Souls. 

Gen. 46 26 — "All the souls That came with Jacob into Egypt, which 
came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls 
were threescore and six." 

This excludes Jacob, Leah, Rachel, Zilpah, Bilhah, Joseph, Manasseh, 
Ephraim and the wives of Jacob's 12 sons. 



122 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



The 70 Souls. 

Gen. 46 2 7 . — "All the souls of the house of Jacob which came into Egypt 

were threescore and ten." 
Deut. 10 2 2 — "Thy fathers went down into Egypt with threescore and 

ten persons." 

This includes Jacob, Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, in addition to 
the 66 — but excludes the wives of Jacob and his 12 sons. 
The 75 Souls. 

Acts 7 14 . Jacob and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls. 
Gen. 46 20 . The LXX. adds "And there were born unto Manasseh and 

Ephraim, whom his concubine the Aramitess bare him, Machir ; 

and Machir begat Gilead. And the sons of Ephraim the brother 

of Manasseh were Shuthelah, Tahath ; and the sons of Shuthelah, 

Edem (or Bered or Becher)." 
This addition is probably taken from Numb. 26 2 8-3 7 and 1 Chron. 7 20 . 
Numb. 26 2 9 . "Of the sons of Manasseh; of Machir the family of the 

Machirites : and Machir begat Gilead." 
Numb. 26 3 5 . "These are the sons of Ephraim after their families; of 

Shuthelah the family of the Shuthalhites, of Becher the family of 

the Bachrites, of Tahan the family of the Tahanites." 
1 Chron. 7 14 . The sons of Manasseh ; whom his concubine Ashriel the 

Aramitess bare : she bare Machir the father of Gilead. 
1 Chron. 7 20 . "And the sons of Ephraim; Shuthelah, and Bered his son, 

and Tahath his son." 

The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament was the version used by 
Stephen and sometimes by Paul. 

Note also the adoption of Joseph's two sons Manasseh and Ephraim, 
by Jacob, — 

Gen. 48 5 . c< And now thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, which were 
born unto thee in the land of Egypt before I came unto thee in Egypt, are 
mine ; as Reuben and Simeon they shall be mine." 



Jacob went down into Egypt (see above, Chapter 10) at the age of 130, 
being not necessarily more than 129 when his youngest great grandson Hamul, 
the son of Pharez, the son of Judah was born, and not necessarily more than 
130 when his youngest grandson Ard the son of Benjamin was born. Dinah 
would have been at Shechem at the early age of 13,. and Benjamin would 
have had a son at the early age of 16 — unless some of Benjamin's sons were 
twins, in which case Dinah may have been older, and Benjamin may have 
married later. Benjamin may have had more than one wife, in which case 
the difficulty disappears. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



123 



THE AGE OF JACOB AND HIS DESCENDANTS, WHEN JACOB 

CAME INTO EGYPT. 



Jacob left home ( see above, Chapter 10) at the age of 

Jacob married Leah and Rachel at same time, at the age of 

Reuben born of Leah when Jacob was, say 

Simeon ,, „ ...... 

Levi ,, ,, „ ...... 

Judah „ „ „ 

Pharez born when Judah was, say 20, and Jacob, say 

Hezron born, Pharez say 20, Judah say 40, Jacob say 
Hamul born, Pharez say 21, Judah say 41, Jacob say 

Dan born of Bilhah, Rachel's maid when Jacob was, say . . 

Napthali ,, ,, ,, 

Gad born of Zilpah, Leah's maid when Jacob was, say . . 

Asher ,, 

Issachar born of Leah when Jacob was, say 

Zebulun ,, ,, ...... 

Dinah ,, ,, ...... 

Joseph born of Rachel (see above, Chapter 10) when Jacob was 
Dinah at Shechem at age of, say, 13 when Jacob was, say . . 
Benjamin born of Rachel when Jacob was, say 

Belah born when Benjamin was, say 16 and Jacob say 
Becher ., 17 



Ashbel 

Gera 

Naaman 

Ehi 

Rosh 

Muppim 

Huppim 

Ard 



18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 
24 

25 



Some doubt has been cast upon the number of the children of Israel who 
went up out of Egypt as expressed (1) in Exodus 12 3 7 , "600,000 men 
beside children," (2) in Numb. 2 32 "603,550," beside the Levites at the 
beginning of the 2nd year after they came out of Egypt, and (3) in Numb. 
26 51 , " 601,730 " at the close of the 40 years in the wilderness. 

But these doubts are quite groundless. From the going down into Egypt, 
an.hom. 2298, to the Exodus, an.hom. 2513, is 215 years. Mr. Malthus has 
shown that with an abundant supply of food, a given population may continue 
to double its numbers in about 15 years, and in favoured cases, in even 
less time. At this rate of increase the 70 souls who went down into Egypt 
would have multiplied in 225 years to 2,293,760, which is perhaps about the 
number of the entire population including Levites, women and children ; 
the 600,000 mentioned in Ex. 12 3 7 , Numb. 2 32 and 26 5 1 , would be the adult 
males. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



Chapter XL The Joseph-Moses Connection. 

From the Death of Joseph to the Birth of Moses = 64 years. 

(an. hom. 2369-2433) 

The Book of Genesis closes with the death of Joseph at the age of 110. There 
the Patriarchal Chronology comes to an end, and it ends in a cut de sac. We 
can go no further in this line, for the age of Joseph at the birth of Ephraim 
and Manasseh is not stated. We must therefore turn back and start afresh. 

Between the end of Genesis and the beginning of Exodus there is a great 
chronological gulf or chasm. In Genesis we close with Israel in favour in 
Egypt under one dynasty. In Exodus we open with the rise of a new King, 
of another dynasty, who " knew not Joseph," and with Israel in affliction 
in Egypt. The Book of Exodus opens with a recapitulation of the names 
and the number of the children of Israel who came into Egypt, and of the 
bitter affliction which overtook them under the rule of the new Pharaoh — 
the Pharaoh of the Oppression. But the exact point at which the chronological 
continuity of the narrative commences is the birth of Moses. The problem 
is, then, how to bridge the gulf, and how to determine the exact number of 
the years between the death of Joseph and the birth of Moses. 

The answer is given in the long number of the sojourning and the affliction 
of Abraham and his seed, which dates from the call of Abraham at the age of 
75, viz. an. hom. 2083, and which ends at the Exodus. This period is definitely 
stated to be a period of exactly 430 years. Now we know that from the call 
of Abram to the death of Joseph (an. hom. 2083-2369) was a period of 286 years, 
and we know that from the birth of Moses to the Exodus was a period of 
80 years (Ex. 2 11 " 15 ' 23 , Ex. y 1 , Acts 7 23 - 30 ). If we add these numbers 
(286 + 80—366) and subtract the sum of them from the number of years in 
the entire period (430 - 366 = 64), the remaining 64 years will be the exact 
length of the period between the death of Joseph and the birth of Moses ; be- 
tween the close of the narrative of Genesis and the beginning of that of Exodus. 
There is here no appeal to Josephus, no speculative hypothesis, no assumption 
or conjecture. The result is obtained by a historical induction from the 
facts and figures given in the Text itself, and is mathematically exact. 

There are many similar cases of gaps or chasms, like this, in the Chronology 
of the detailed events given in the narrative of the Text of the Old Testament, 
but they are always made good by statements which bridge over the gulf 
by giving the entire length of a longer period which includes, and thereby 
specifies, the length of the gap or chasm left in the Chronology of the events 
as related in detail. 

These chasms begin with very simple problems, easily solved, like that 
of the age of Noah at the birth of Shem, and that of the age of Terah at the 
birth of Abram. They then become slightly more complex, as in the case 
before us, the problem of the length of the period between the death of Joseph 
and the birth of Moses. After this they become much more complex and 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 125 



involved, as in the case of the Joshua- Judges connection and the Eli-Saul 
connection, whilst finally, in the determination of the length of the reigns 
of the Persian monarchs who occupied the throne between the first year of 
Cyrus and the second year of Darius Hystaspes, and in the length of the period 
between the first year of Cyrus and the Crucifixion, we reach the most difficult 
problems of all in Sacred Chronology. 

Nevertheless, the solution is always given, either in the Record of the 
prophetic narrator, or else in the words of the prophet, and given with such 
precision that the Chronology can be fixed with as great a degree of certainty 
as the Chronology of any period in secular history. 

The demonstration of the length of the period between the death of Joseph 
and the birth of Moses may be set out in tabular form as follows : — 



The Joseph-Moses Connection. 



From the Death of Joseph to the Birth of Moses =64 years. 



2369. 



64- 
2433. 



Death of Joseph at age of no (see previous Chapter). 

Add 64 years to the birth of Moses, for, — 
Ex. 12 40,41 , Call of Abram to Exodus 

See Chapter 10 on the 400 and the 430 years. 
From Call of Abram to death of Joseph (an.hom. 
2083-2369 

See Table of Hebrew Patriarchs, Chapter 10. 
.*. Death of Joseph to Exodus 



Ex.2 23 , Acts 7 2 9 - 3 °, Flight of Moses 
when Moses was 80 

.-. Death of Joseph to flight of Moses, 
Ex. 2 11 " 15 , Acts 7 23-29^ Birth of Moses 
Moses, 

Death of Joseph to Birth of Moses 
Moses born. 



to Exodus, 



to Flight of 



430 years 



286 



144 

40 
104 

64 



Chapter XII. Comparative Chronology — Abraham to Moses. 

Israel in Egypt. 

The statements of the Hebrew Text respecting this period have not been 
controverted by ancient testimony or modern discovery. The only doubt 
that has arisen is in connection with the silence of the Monuments of Egypt 
respecting so great an episode as the residence of the Israelites in Egypt, 
the career of Joseph and Moses, and so remarkable an event as the 
Exodus. 

As Professor Sayce says : " There is no direct mention of the Israelites 
in Egypt on the Monuments or in the papyri, neither is there any representation 
of their servitude," but they belonged to the servant class of brickmakers 



126 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



and hewers of wood and drawers of water, and would not be likely to be 
portrayed on temples or walls or tombs. There is also no mention of the 
plagues, but the nations of antiquity never chronicled their misfortunes, 
their disasters, or their defeats, only their triumphs and their victories. 

The Pharaoh of Joseph, the Pharaoh of the Oppression, and the Pharaoh 
of the Exodus have not been certainly identified, but it is very generally 
supposed that the Pharaoh of the Oppression was the great Rameses II, who 
reigned 67 years, and filled Egypt with statues of himself, and that the Pharaoh 
of the Exodus was his son and successor Merenptah, both of the 19th dynasty. 
No dates can be given, for the materials for fixing the same are wanting. 
Two schools of Egyptologists place the date of Rameses II at B.C. 1350 (Budge) 
and B.C. 1292 (Kent) respectively. 

Dr. C. F. Kent thinks the Pharaoh of the Oppression may have been 
Amenophis IV of the 18th dynasty, whom Budge dates B.C. 1400, and Kent 
B.C. 1375. The Pharaoh of the Oppression has also been identified with 
one of the Hyksos or Shepherd Kings who were formerly dated B.C. 1750, 
but whose expulsion is dated by Kent about B.C. 1580. 

Professor Sayce thinks the children of Israel came into Egypt in the time 
of the Hyksos or Shepherd Kings, and that on their expulsion there arose 
a new King, a Pharaoh of a new dynasty who knew not Joseph. 

" The Oppression culminated," says Professor Sayce, " in the long reign 
of Rameses II, for whom the Israelites built the cities of Ramses and Pithom 
(Ex. i 11 ). Ramses or Raamses was the name given to Zoan or Tanis, the 
old capital of the Hyksos, after its reconstruction by Ramses, and the city 
of Pithom was discovered only two years ago in the mounds of Tel-el-Maskhuta 
near Tel-el-Kebir. Inscriptions found on the spot show that it was built 
by Ramses II as a storehouse for corn or treasure. It contains store chambers 
strongly constructed, and divided by partition walls as much as 8 or 10 feet 
thick." 

The bricks are sun-baked, some mixed with straw and others not. They 
may be seen to-day in the Museum at Cairo, where the visitor is also shown 
the mummies of Seti I, Ramses I, Ramses II (the supposed Pharaoh of the 
Oppression) and Merenptah (the supposed Pharaoh of the Exodus). The 
bricks were discovered by M. Ernest Naville, who regards the strawless bricks 
as the work of the Israelites to whom Pharaoh said, " I will not give you straw 
(Ex. 5 10 ). If Ramses II was the Pharaoh of the Oppression, the Pharaoh 
of the Exodus must have been his son Merenptah whose reign was of short 
duration and full of disaster. 

It must not be supposed that the Pharaoh of the Exodus was himself 
drowned in the Red Sea. The narrative in Exodus 14, and Moses' Song 
in Exodus 15, both expressly guard the reader against that supposition. The 
waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen, and all the 
host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them ; there remained not so 
much as one of them, Ex.14 28 — " a ^ tne nos t. of Pharaoh that came into the 
sea" is a different expression from "Pharaoh and all his host." Again, 
in Ex. 15 1 9 , we read " the horse of Pharaoh went in with his chariots and with 
his horsemen," but not " Pharaoh and his horse." 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 127 



The Merenptah Stele. 

The one contemporary allusion to Israel in the Egyptian Monuments 
is the recently discovered triumphal Stele of this same Merenptah, son of 
Ramses II, also in the Cairo Museum. In this he speaks of his conquest 
of Canaan in the following words : — 

Plundered is Canaan with every evil. 

Ascalon is carried into Captivity. 

Gezer is taken. 

Yenoam is annihilated. 

Israel is desolated, her seed is not. 

Palestine has become a widow for Egypt. 

All lands are united, they are pacified. 

Everyone who is turbulent has been bound by King Merenptah. 
The dates of the Egyptian Kings are uncertain, and naturally give rise 
to different schools of Chronologists, but there is no reason why uncertainty 
should be introduced into the Biblical Chronology where everything is clear, 
unambiguous and precise. 

Misleading Hypotheses of the Higher Critics. 

Nevertheless, many eminent and distinguished men, from Francois 
Lenormant of the Imperial Institute of France to Prof. C. F. Kent, Ph.D., 
Professor of Biblical Literature in Yale University, will persist in regarding 
the period of the residence of Israel in Egypt as a period of 430 years. 
Lenormant says, in his Manual of the Ancient History of the East, " The Hebrews 
remained 430 years in the fertile land of Goshen." Prof. Kent is still more 
confusing. He says truly enough that in Genesis 15 1 6 it is stated that the 
Hebrews were to return to Palestine in the fourth generation, which they 
did, as shown by the two passages which he quotes, Ex. 6 16-20 and 
Numb. 26 s7 - 59 . 

Levi. 



Kohath. 

I 

Amram. m. , Jochebed. 

I 

Moses. 

Prof. Kent's difficulty arises from inattention to the structure of Gen. 
15 13 . " Know of a surety that 

A. thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, 

B. and shall serve them ; 

B. and they shall afflict them ; 
A. four hundred years." 



128 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



The structure of this verse is admirably explained in the Companion Bible, 
sub. Gen. 15 13 . The Text is what is known as an Introversion, in which 
sentences A and A correspond to each other and relate to the same event, 
whilst sentences B and B likewise correspond to each other, and relate to 
another event. A and A relate to the whole period of the sojourning and 
the servitude in Canaan and in Egypt (400 years). B and B are parenthetic, 
and relate to the servitude in Egypt, and that alone (215 years.) 

Gen. 15 14-16 gives further details relating to the period of the servitude 
in Egypt, referred to in Clauses B and B. 

v. 14. " And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge ; and 
afterward shall they come out with great substance." 

v. 15. " And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace ; thou shalt be buried 
in a good old age." 

v. 16. " But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again ; for the 
iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full." 

Clearly the point of departure for the reckoning of these generations, 
is the generation that went down into Egypt, viz. either that of Levi, in 
which case the four generations will be Levi, Kohath, Amram and Moses ; 
or that of Jacob, in which case the four generations will be Jacob, Levi, 
Jochebed and Moses. The children of Israel returned from Egypt in the 
generation of Moses, which was the fourth generation from that of Levi, the 
generation in which they went down into Egypt. 

Prof. Kent then adds the misleading and groundless supposition, which 
he states as if it were a fact : " This implies a period of between 100 and 
150 years." Now we know exactly how long this period was. From the 
going down into Egypt in the year an. hom. 2298 to the Exodus in an. hom. 
2513 was exactly 215 years, no more and no less. 

Then follows another quotation, which Prof. Kent introduces in such 
a way as to suggest that it contradicts the statement that Israel would return 
from Egypt in the fourth generation : "On the other hand, a late editor 
in Gen. 15 13 predicts that the period of foreign sojourn was to be exactly 400 
years." So it did, but the period of " foreign sojourn " was not the residence 
of Israel in Egypt, which was 215 years, and not the sojourn of Abraham and 
his seed, which began an. hom. 2083, when Abram left his home and kindred in 
Haran, and lasted till the Exodus, an. hom. 2513, a period of 430 years, but was, 
as the Text most distinctly states, the sojourn of Abraham 's seed, not therefore 
including the 30 additional years of Abraham's own sojourning, but only 
the years from an. hom. 2113 (when Isaac was weaned and became the heir of 
Abraham, Ishmael being disinherited) to an. hom. 2513, the period of 400 
years named in the Text. 

A further contradiction is suggested in the following sentence, in which 
Prof. Kent says, "Another compiler in Exodus 12 40 affirms that the time 
the Israelites dwelt in Egypt was 430 years." The Hebrew of Ex. 12 40 is 
accurately rendered in the Authorised Version, which reads, " Now the 
sojourning of the Children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was 430 years." It 
is inaccurately rendered in the Revised Version, "Now the sojourning of the 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 129 



children of Israel which they sojourned in Egypt was 430 years," the confusion 
in the minds of the Revisers arising through the want of a proper understanding 
of the Chronology of the period, which is very exact and always consistent 
with itself. 

Prof. Kent proceeds, " With this passage definitely in mind, the author 
of Gal. 3 17 assigns 430 to the period from Abraham to Sinai." And correctly 
so, for he understands the Chronology. The " promise " of Gal. 3 17 was given 
immediately after Abram received and responded to the call of God to 
leave his home and kindred and begin his sojourn, an. hom. 2083. The Law 
was given in Sinai 2 months after the Exodus, an. hom. 2513, so that " the 
period from Abraham to Sinai" is a period of exactly 430 years. 

Prof. Kent implies that these " contradictions " are due to the fact that 
the passages quoted are derived from different sources, which he describes 
as the Northern Israelite history (E), the priestly writer (P), the late 
priestly writer (P 2 ), a late editor (R 1 ), another compiler (R 2 ). There is no 
basis in fact for this discrimination between the supposed different sources. 

The concluding sentence of Prof. Kent's paragraph is a striking evidence of 
the blindness of an able scholar, and his inability to see the truth even when he 
is writing it down with his own pen. He says, " Josephus and the translators 
of the Samaritan and Greek Versions give the duration of the sojourn as 
215 years, which is evidently a compromise between the shorter and the longer 
periods suggested by the earlier writings." It is nothing of the kind. It 
is the exact rendering into figures of the statements of the Hebrew Text, 
which gives 215 years for the sojourn in Egypt, and which cannot possibly 
be made to give anything else but 215 for it. The shorter period of 100 to 
150 years is a baseless conjecture of Prof. Kent, which has no relation to any 
Scripture fact or statement whatsoever. The longer period is a different 
period altogether, beginning at another epoch, and referring to another event. 

The Hebrew Text of Ex. 12 40 reads: "The sojourning of the children 
of Israel who sojourned in Egypt was 430 years." The LXX. and the 
Samaritan insert after Egypt the words " and in the land of Canaan," and 
consequently read, " the sojourning of the children of Israel who sojourned 
in Egypt and in the land of Canaan was 430 years." The added words agree 
perfectly with the Hebrew, which is further elucidated, but in no way modified 
by them. They correctly interpret the meaning of the Hebrew Text, and the 
fact that the interpretation put upon it is correct is shown by its adoption 
by Stephen (Acts 7 6 ) and by the Apostle Paul (Gal. 3 17 ). But the meaning 
of the Hebrew is sufficiently clear without the explanatory addition when 
the Text is properly translated. 

The Chronology of the Old Testament is exact and accurate in every detail, 
and will answer to any truly scientific test to which it is put, but to 
misinterpret the Text, to infer therefrom what is not therein implied, or to 
construe it in such a way as to make it mean what it was never intended to 
mean, can only lead to misunderstanding and confusion. 

A glance at the following diagram will make the matter clear. 



1 



130 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



DIAGRAM OF THE 215, THE 400 AND THE 430 YEARS 

OF SOJOURN IN CANAAN, AND THE SOJOURN AND AFFLICTION IN EGYPT. 



Call, 
Promise 

and 
Covenant 
of 

Abraham. 
2083. 



Weaning of 
Isaac, who 
becomes 
Abraham's 
Seed and Heir. 
Ishmael 
disinherited. 
2113 



Jacob 
goes 

down 
into 

Egypt. 
2298. 



30 years. 



Abraham 
sojourns 
in Canaan. 



185 years. 



215 years. 



The Exodus 
and the 
giving 
of the 
Law. 
2513- 



Abraham's Seed 
sojourn in Canaan 



The Children of Israel sojourn and 
are afflicted in Egypt. 



The 215 years of Josephus, the LXX. 
and the Samaritan Version. 



The 400 years of Genesis 1 5 1 3 and Acts 7 G . 



The 430 years of Exodus 1 2 4 ° - 4 1 and Galatians 3 



The Khammurabi Stele. 

One other important discovery of recent years belongs to this period, 
one that has entirely vindicated the authenticity and re-established the 
authority of a unique passage in the Old Testament, formerly rejected by the 
critics as a late addition dating from about B.C. 300 — the Khammurabi Stele 
and the 14th chapter of Genesis. The copy of the great Code of Laws drawn 
up by Khammurabi, King of Babylon (c. B.C. 2200 according to Budge), 
was discovered at Susa, in the winter of 1901-2. ■ It contains a classified 
collection of laws, 282 in number, by which the Babylonians were to regulate 
their affairs. It was set up in Esagila, the temple of Marduk, in Babylon, 
was carried away by an Elamite King to Susa, and has now been brought to 
England and placed in the British Museum. 

The 14th chapter of Genesis contains an account of an expedition of 
Chedorlaomer, King of Elam, and his allies, one of whom was Amraphel, 
King of Shinar, or Southern Babylonia, against the Kings of Sodom and 
Gomorrah, and their allies, four Kings against five. The account was con- 
demned as unhistorical by the critics, partly because it was said to be 
incredible that a Babylonian campaign should be waged against a distant 
country like Palestine at that early age, and partly because the chapter 
represents a King of Elam as a leader of the invading army. 

We now find from the Monuments that before the days of Abraham the 
Babylonian Kings led their armies as far west as Palestine, and even 
to Cyprus and Mount Sinai. Further, it is now known that in the time of 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



131 



Abraham, Babylon was subject to the Aryan Kingdom of Elam and was 
divided into two states, the Southern one being called Sumer or Shinar, and 
the Northern one Akkad. The name Chedorlaomer is an Elamite name, 
meaning servant of the Elamite God Lagamur. Bricks in the British Museum 
tell us that Chedorlaomer had conquered Babylon, and that Eri-Aku, son 
of Kudur-Mabug, servant of the Elamite God Mabug, ruled at Larsa. But 
Eri-Aku of Larsa is Arioch of Ellassar, and Khammurabi of Sumer is 
Amraphel of Shinar or South Babylonia, whose Code of Laws has just been 
recovered. 




PERIOD II. THE THEOCRACY— Exodus to i Sam. 7. 



Chapter XIII. Israel in Egypt from the Birth of Moses to the Exodus. 

(an. hom. 2433-2513). 

The Chronology of this period is very simple ; it consists of the first two 
periods, of 40 years each, of Moses' life. The Table is as follows : — 

Birth of Moses to the Exodus. 
an. hom. ' 

2433. Moses born (see Chapter 11). 

40. Add 40 years to flight of Moses (Ex. 2 11 " 15 , Acts 723-29^ 
2473. Flight of Moses. 

40. Add 40 years to the Exodus when Moses was 80 years old. 
(Ex. 2 23 , 7 7 , Acts 729-30). 

2513. The Exodus. 

Hence Exodus i 6 -i2 40 ' 41 , from the death of Joseph, 
an. hom. 2369 to the Exodus, an. hom. 2513, covers a period 
of 144 years. 

It is definitely stated that Moses was 80 years old when he and Aaron 
spoke to Pharaoh, and as the narrative is continuous, with no note of time to 
indicate anything to the contrary, we may conclude that the ten plagues 
all took place immediately afterwards, and that the Exodus was accomplished 
that same year. This is confirmed by the fact that months before the 
completion of the 40 years in the wilderness Moses died at the age of 120 
years. 

It is not definitely stated in the Text of the Old Testament that Moses 
was exactly 40 years old at the date of his flight, but we are told in Ex. 2 11 
that it took place " when Moses was grown," a phrase which meant " when 
Moses was 40 years of age," just as with us the phrase " coming of age " 
means arriving at the age of 21. This is the interpretation put upon the 
words by Stephen in Acts j 23 , and on this point he is a credible authority. 

But even if we were doubtful as to whether Moses fled to Midian exactly 
at the age of 40, and led the people out of Egypt at the age of 80, the date 
of the Exodus would be unaffected by the doubt, and only two intermediate 
steps in the chronological ladder would be moved up or down, with com- 
pensation elsewhere to bring the Exodus down to the year AN. hom. 2513 as 
stated in the above Table. 

132 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



133 



Chapter XIV. The Forty Years in the Wilderness. 

(an. hom. 2513-2553) 

In Chapter 13 we reached the conclusion that the narrative of Ex. 1 6 -i2 40- 41 
covers a period of 144 years, from the death of Joseph to the Exodus. We 
have now to show that the remaining portion of the Pentateuch, including 
the 15 days to the morrow after the Passover, viz. Nisan 15, an. hom. 2553 
(Josh. 5 1011 ), of which details are given in Josh, i 1 ^ 10 , covers a period of 
exactly 40 years. The events of this period of 40 years are detailed in the 
following Tables : — 



I. Bible Dates in Exodus 12 40 - 41 -4o 38 . 
Israel in the Wilderness. 
From the Exodus to the erection of the Tabernacle, Ex. 12 40- 41 -40 38 . 

(1) From the Exodus to the wilderness of Sin. month; 

From 15th day, 1st mo. 1st yr., Ex. 12 2-6 , 29-41^ \ 

Num. 33 3 . . . . . . . . . . [ = 1 

To 15th day, 2nd mo. 1st yr., Ex. 16 1 . . . . . . ) 

(2) From the wilderness of Sin to the Giving of the Law on Sinai. 

From 15th day, 2nd mo. 1st yr., Ex. 16 1 . . . . ] 

To 15th day, 3rd mo. 1st yr., Ex. 19 12 . . . . j — 1 

(3) From the giving of the Law on Sinai to the erection of the 

Tabernacle. 

From 15th day, 3rd mo. 1st yr., Ex. 19 1,2 .. . . 1 

To 1st day, 1st mo. 2nd yr., Ex. 40 17 . . . . . . j* 9 2 

,\ Exodus i2 40 41 -4O covers a period of . . .. 

And the whole Book of Exodus covers a period of 144 yrs. mos. 



II. Bible Dates in the Book of Leviticus. 

Israel in the Wilderness. 

From the erection of the Tabernacle to the first census at Sinai. 

From 1st day, 1st mo. 2nd yr., Ex. 40 17 1 
To 1st day, 2nd mo. 2nd yr., Numb. 1 1 j r 



'. The Book of Leviticus covers a period of 1 month. 



134 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 

III. Bible Dates in the Book of Numbers. 
Israel in the Wilderness. 
F rom the first census at Sinai to the address of Moses in the plains of Moab. 

(1) From the first census at Sinai to the sending out of 

the spies at Paran. 
From ist day, 2nd mo. 2nd yr., Numb, i 1 .. > 
To 20th day, 2nd. mo. 2nd yr., Numb, io 1112 , I = 20 days. 

17-30 _ ^ ^ m t ^ m # # J 

(2) From the sending out of the spies at Paran 

to the death of Miriam. 
From 20th day, 2nd mo. 2nd yr., Numb. ] 

io 1112 , i3 1 7-2o [ = 37 yrs. 11 mo. odays. 

To — day, ist mo. 40th. yr., Numb. 20 1 . J 

(3) From the death of Miriam to the death of Aaron. 

From — day, ist mo. 40th yr., Numb. 20 1 ^ 

To ist day, 5th mo. 40th yr., Numb. 20 2 8 , y = 3 mo. 10 days. 

33 38 ' 39 j 

(4) From the death of Aaron to the address of Moses 

in the plains of Moab. 

From ist day, 5th mo. 40th yr., Numb. \ 

20 2 8 , 33 3 8 3 9 .. .. .. r = 6 mo. 0 days. 

To ist day, nth mo. 40th yr., Deut. i 3 I 



:. The Book of Numbers covers a period of . . 38 yrs. 9 months. 

IV. Bible Dates in the Book of Deuteronomy. 

(Including the 15 days of Joshua i 1 ^ 10 to complete the 40 years in the 

wilderness.) 

Israel in the Wilderness. 

From the address of Moses in the plains of Moab to the entry into Canaan. 

(1) From the address of Moses in the plains of Moab to the death of Moses. 

From ist day, nth mo. 40th yr. Deut. 1 3 . . . . ) 

To (say) ist day, 12th mo. 40th yr. to make up the - 1 month. 

40 yrs. of Numb. 14 33 , 32 13 , Josh. 5 6 . . . .. I 

(2) The 30 days of mourning for Moses. 



From ist day, 12th mo. 40th yr., Numb. 14 



33 o?13 

> j- 



Josh. 5 6 -1 month. 

To ist day, ist mo. 41st yr., Deut. 34 s . . . . . . I 

(3) From the end of the 30 days mourning to the entry into Canaan. 
From ist day, ist mo. 41st yr., Deut. 34 s . \ 
To 14th day, ist mo. 41st yr., Josh, i 11 (3 days),' 

2 16 (3 days), 3 1 (1 day), 3 2 (3 days), 4 19 (iothday),! * waattL 
5 6 (40 years), 5 10 (14th day) .. .. .. ' 



The Book of Deuteronomy, including Josh, i 1 -^ 10 , 

covers a period of . . . . . . . . 2} months. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 135 



These results enable us to continue the Chronology from the Exodus to 
the entry into Canaan, as follows : — 

The Forty Years in the Wilderness. 



YRS. MTHS. 



2513. The Exodus (see previous Chapter) 

40. Add 40 years, viz. Events of Exodus 12 4 °- 41 ~40 . . 

Events of Leviticus . . . . 1 
Events of Numbers . . . . 38 . 9 
Events of Deuteronomy including 

Josh, i 1 -^ 10 21 

2553 40 • 0 



Chapter XV. The Seven Years' War. 
From the Entry into Canaan to the Division oj the hand. 
(an. hom. 2553-2560) 

In our last Chapter we arrived at the end of the 40 years in the wilderness, 
the crossing of the Jordan, and the encampment at Gilgal on the 14th day of 
the 1st month of the year AN. hom. 2553. " The people came up out of Jordan 
on the 10th day of the 1st month and encamped in Gilgal " (Josh. 4 19 ). At 
that time the children of Israel who had been born in the wilderness were 
circumcised (Josh. 5 2 ). For the children of Israel walked 40 years in the 
wilderness (Josh 5 6 ) and they encamped in Gilgal and kept the Passover 
on the 14th day of the month, even in the plains of Jericho. "And they did 
eat of the old corn of the land on the morrow after the Passover, unleavened 
cakes and parched corn the selfsame day. And the manna ceased on the 
morrow after they had eaten of the old corn of the land ; neither had the 
children of Israel manna any more, but they did eat of the fruit of the land 
of Canaan that year " (Josh. 5 10-12 ). 

The Book of Joshua carries forward the Chronology from the entry into 
Canaan to the end of the Seven Years' War (at the conclusion of which Joshua 
divided up the land of Canaan amongst the twelve tribes), but no further. 

We are told in Josh. 24 s9 that Joshua died at the age of no years, but 
it is not stated how long this was after the division of the Land, and we have 
no information as to the date of Joshua's birth, so that the date of his death 
is unknown. 

The age of Caleb, however, is given, or rather it may be inferred or obtained 
by a historical induction, and by this means we arrive at the date of the con- 
clusion of the war of the conquest of Canaan and the division of the Land 
amongst the twelve tribes, which thereupon immediately ensued. 

The date of the Exodus, as we have seen in Chapter 13, is an. hom. 2513 
(Ex. 12 4041 ). The spies were sent out in the 2nd year after the Exodus — 
" And it came to pass on the 20th day of the 2nd month in the 2nd year, 
that the cloud was taken up from the Tabernacle of the Testimony. And 
the children of Israel took their journeys out of the wilderness of Sinai ; 
and the cloud rested in the wilderness of Paran," Numb. 10 1112 . "So 
they departed from the mount a three days' journey " (Numb. 10 33 ). They 
murmured, and God sent them quails, of which they ate for a whole month 



136 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



(Numb. ii 20 ). Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses, and Miriam 
was shut out of the camp for seven days. " And the people journeyed not 
until Miriam was brought in again " (Numb. 12 15 ). And afterward the people 
removed from Hazeroth and pitched in the wilderness of Paran (Numb. 
12 16 ). From the wilderness of Paran (Numb. 13 3 ) Moses sent out the 12 
spies, Numb. 13 17 , "at the time of the first ripe grapes" (Numb. 13 20 ), 
" and they returned from searching the land after 40 days, and they went 
and came to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation of the children of 
Israel into the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh " (Numb. 13 2 5- 2 6) Amongst 
the number of these 12 spies was Oshea the son of Nun, of the tribe of Ephraim 
(Numb. 13 8 ), whom Moses named Jehoshua (Numb. 13 16 ). With Caleb 
the son of Jephunneh (Numb. 13 6 30 , 14 6-10 ), he brought back a faithful 
report and endeavoured to still the murmuring of the people when they 
heard the evil report of the other ten spies (Numb. 13 30 , 14 s - 10 ). 

At this time, viz. in the summer or early autumn of the year an. hom. 2515, 
Caleb was 40 years old. " Forty years old was I when Moses the servant 
of the Lord sent me from Kadesh-barnea to espy out the land " (Josh. 14 7 ). 
Therefore Caleb was born in the year an. hom. 2475. But at the division of 
the Land (Josh. 13 \ 14 5 , and 15 2 -i9 51 ), on the conclusion of the war of conquest 
(Josh 14 15 ) Caleb said, "And now behold the Lord hath kept me alive, as 
he said, these 45 years, even since the Lord spake this word unto Moses while 
the children of Israel wandered in the wilderness ; and now, lo, I am this 
day fourscore and five years old" (Josh. 14 10 ). 

Hence it follows that the division of the Land took place at the end of 
the war of conquest, when Caleb was 85 years of age, viz. an. hom. 2475 + 85 = 
AN. hom 2560, and that the war of the conquest of the Land was a Seven Years' 
War, for from the entry into Canaan in an. hom. 2553 (see the previous chapter) 
to the conclusion of the war. upon which the Land was divided up amongst 
the 12 Tribes, in the year an. hom. 2560, is a period of seven years. 

These results may be exhibited in tabular form as follows : — 

The Seven Years' War. 
From the Entry into Canaan to the Division of the Land. 
(an. hom. 2553-2560). 

AN. HOM. V U ' 

2553. The entry into Canaan (see Chapter 14) 
Add 7 years to division of the Land, for : — 

Exodus (Ex. 12 40 41 ) see previous Chapter =2513 
Spies sent out in 2nd year after the Exodus 

(Numb. 10 111 2 , 13 17 " 2 °) .. .. =2515 

At that date Caleb was 40 (Josh. 14 7 ) 

.-. Caleb was born 2515-40 . . . . = 2475 
But at the division of the Land Caleb 
was 85 (Josh. 14 10 ). 
.-. Division of the Land took place in 

2475 + 85 , .. =2560 

:. From entry of Canaan to division of 
7- Land — 2560 - 2553 = 7 years 

2560. Division of the Land at end of Seven Years' War. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 137 



Chapter XVI. The Joshua-Judges Connection. 

From the Division of the Land to the Oppression of Cushan = 13 years. 

(an. hom. 2560-2573). 

The determination of the length of this period has been a great puzzle to 
the Chronologers. To all of them except the author of the Companion Bible 
it has proved an insoluble problem. Ussher makes it 31 years. He reckons 
one year for the period from the division of the Land to the death of Joshua, 
and the election of the Elders (Judges 2 7 ), " because from the birth of the 
promised seed Isaac (an. hom. 2108) to this time (an. hom. 2561) are reckoned 
452 years, and from the rejection of Ishmael (an. hom. 2113) to this time 
(an. hom. 2561) 447 years, but between both we may count 450 years." 

This is most unsatisfactory, for it not only puts an end to the method 
of stating the exact year in which an event occurs, the only system which 
deserves the name of Chronology at all, but it rests upon a forced construction 
of the passage in Acts 13 17 " 20 , which cannot mean 450 years from the birth 
or the weaning of Isaac to the entry into Canaan, but must mean 450 years 
from the completion of the conquest of Canaan, " when he had destroyed seven 
nations/' to the end of the Judgeship of Samuel. The length of the period 
from the division of the Land to the death of Joshua is nowhere directly 
stated or implied in Scripture. It cannot, therefore, be directly ascertained. 

Ussher reckons an interval of 30 years, or one generation for the anarchy 
or misrule which succeeded from the death of Joshua to the beginning of the 
oppression of Cushan. This is not Chronology, if Chronology be a science 
at all, but the substitution of a good guess, or a subjective impression, for 
an objective fact, which latter is what we require in all true science. 

Clinton fares little better. He says : " After the death of Moses, a chasm 
occurs in the Scripture Chronology. We are not informed what was the 
duration of the government of Joshua and the Elders, and of the interregnum 
or anarchy which followed. The notices of Scripture show that this period 
was not very long. The division of the Land was 45 years after the 2nd 
year from the Exode. The time of the anarchy included all the days of the 
Elders who overlived Joshua (Josh. 24 3 2 ) and lasted till all that generation 
were gathered to their fathers, and there arose another generation which knew 
not the Lord (Judges 2 1 °) . Caleb and Joshua might be about the same age, 
about 40 at the Exode, which would bring the death of Joshua to the 30th 
year after the death of Moses. He was already old and stricken in years, 
six years after the death of Moses (Josh. 13 1 ). Although the anarchy 
lasted till the Elders who overlived Joshua were dead, yet Othniel, who was a 
military leader in the sixth year after the death of Moses (Josh. 15 1617 , 
Jud. i 1213 ), survived the anarchy 48 years (Jud. 3 8 " 11 ). And Phineas 
was priest during the anarchy (Jud. 20 2 8 ), who was at least 20 years of age 
in the last year of Moses, when the priesthood was promised to his posterity. 
His father Eleazar died soon after the death of Joshua (Josh. 24 3 3 ). The 
interval then between the death of Moses and the first servitude may be pretty 
accurately filled, although the years will be assigned upon conjecture and not 
upon testimony." 



138 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



This is only another way of abandoning the science of Chronology and 
substituting for real dates a table of unvenflable conjectures. 

Another method equally inadmissible is that of falling back upon the 
testimony of Josephus, a late compiler of the ist Century A.D., who had no 
authentic information of the Chronology of this period beyond that which 
we ourselves have in the Text of the Old Testament, except those traditional 
Rabbinical conjectures which he preserves, and which are as inadmissible 
as the conjectures of the modern guesswork Chronologer. 

Josephus makes the period from the death of Moses to the division of the 
land 5 years ; from thence to the death of Joshua 20 years ; from thence to 
the oppression of Cushan 18 years, or a total of 43 years from the death of 
Moses to the oppression of Cushan. This gives, if we deduct the 7 years 
from the death of Moses to the division of the Land, a period of 36 years for 
the Joshua- Judges chasm, from the division of the Land to the oppression 
of Cushan. 

The results given by other Chronologers may be tabulated as follows. 
They are not obtained from the data afforded by the Text of the Old Testament, 
but have been arrived at by their own favourite method of subjective hypothesis 
and conjecture. They are therefore of no authority whatever. The varia- 
tions between them are very numerous, and very large, another proof of the 
invalidity of the method by which they have been obtained. 

The Joshua-Judges Chasm. 

From the Division of the Land to the Oppression of Cushan, according to the 
subjective opinions or guesses of Chronologers Ancient and Modern. 



YEARS. 

Willis J. Beecher . . . . . . . . . . n 

Petavius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iS 

Du Fresnoy . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 

Clinton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 

Sulpicius Severus . . . . . . . . . . 20 

Paschal Chronicle . . . . . . . . . . 20 

Clement of Alexandria . . . . . . . . . . 20 

Theophilus . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 

Eusebius . . . . . . . . 20 or 23 or 48 or 50 

Hales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 

Blair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 

Ussher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 

Henry Browne . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 

Des Vignoles . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 

Josephus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 

Syncellus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 

A.V. Margin — Bp. Lloyd (b.c. 1444-1402) . . . . 42 

Africanus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 

Pezron . . . . . . . . . . .... 61 

Serrarius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 139 



All the data for determining the number of the years between the division 
of the Land and the oppression of Cushan are contained in the text of the 
Old Testament itself. The number of these years is 13. The honour of the 
discovery of this fact is due to the author of the Companion Bible, a work 
from which the present writer has obtained many illuminating suggestions. 
The Companion Bible is one of the most scholarly attempts to elucidate the 
meaning of the Scriptures which has appeared in recent years. It contains 
some errors, which will probably be removed from the second edition. It 
is dominated by the millenary idea, and the figures are sometimes bent to 
make the creation of Adam fall exactly 4,000 years before the actual date of the 
birth of Christ. The conjectural results suggested in part by Lumen, the author 
of the Prince of the House of Judah, and adopted by the author of the Companion 
Bible for the period of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther, are probably erroneous, 
but his bold attempt to free the Chronology of the Bible from the tyranny 
of the Ptolemaic system is one of the many illustrations of the originality 
of the author's genius, and the keenness of his insight into the meaning of 
Scripture. 

The number of years in the so-called Joshua- Judges chasm from the 
division of the Land to the oppression of Cushan is 13. This is involved 
in the length of the long period from the conquest and occupation of Heshbon 
by Joshua in the year before the entry into Canaan (Deut. 2) to its reconquest 
by Ammon 300 years later (Jud. 11 26 ). Now we know the length of every 
constituent portion of this period of 300 years, except the period from the 
division of the Land to the oppression of Cushan, and they amount 
altogether to 287 years. Therefore we conclude by an inevitable historical 
induction that that period must have contained exactly the remaining 13 
years. 

Before proceeding to the demonstration of this fact, the reader should glance 
at the bird's-eye view of the content of the Book of Judges given on page 48 
in Vol II. in the form of a Table of the 12 Judges and the one usurper King, 
whose history is recorded in the Book of Judges, with the respective years 
of servitude, rest, usurpation and Judgeship, and other particulars respect- 
ing the twelve Judges. 

From this Table it will be seen that the Judgeship of Shamgar was included 
in the 20 years of the 3rd servitude under Jabin. This is proved by the words 
of Judges 5 6- 7 : "In the days of Shamgar the son of Anath, in the days of 
Jael, the highways were unoccupied, and the travellers walked through 
byways. The inhabitants of the villages ceased, they ceased in Israel, until 
that I Deborah arose, that I arose a mother in Israel." 

This places the days of Shamgar, which are the days of Jael, in the 20 
years of Jabin's servitude, which lasted " until that I Deborah arose," 
and were brought to a conclusion by the deliverance of Deborah and Barak. 

It will also be seen that the 20 years of the Judgeship of Samson are included 
in the 40 years of the 6th servitude, under the Philistines. This is proved by 
the words of Judges 15 20 : " And he judged Israel in the days of the Philistines 
twenty years." These facts are attested by the same authority as the rest 
of the facts related as happening during this period, viz. by the writer of the 



140 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



Book of Judges. This writer was probably Samuel, who, no doubt, obtained 
all the facts from authentic contemporary records. According to oral tradition, 
dating perhaps from the very time, but first written down in the ist Century 
a.d., in the Talmudic Tract Baba Bathra, Samuel wrote the Books of Judges, 
Ruth, and i Samuel 1-24. All the remaining periods of servitude, rest, 
usurpation and Judgeship in the Book of Judges are strictly consecutive 
and continuous. They are brought to a conclusion in Judges 16 3 x . 

1 Samuel 1 resumes the narrative, which has been interrupted by three 
undated illustrative appendices, and is strictly continuous with the story 
of Samson and the Philistine servitude of Judges 13-16. 

The 40 years of Eli's Judgeship begins where the 40 years of the Philistine 
servitude ends. 

The story of Israel begins with the birth of Abram in Genesis 11. From 
that point on to the end of 2 Kings it is one continuous story throughout, 
interrupted by occasional illustrations like the two appendices in Judges 
17-21, the Book of Ruth, and the five appendices in 2 Samuel 21-24. 

We now return to the demonstration of the fact that the so-called Joshua- 
Judges chasm, or the period from the division of the Land to the oppression 
of Cushan, was a period of 13 years. 

This is one of the most difficult problems of Old Testament Chronology. 
It can only be solved by giving the closest attention (1) to the structure of 
the Book of Judges as a whole ; (2) to the special characteristics of the general 
statements prefixed to the first four servitudes in Judges 2 1 1_ 2 3 , and to the 
last two servitudes in Judges 10 6 " 9 . These are summary or prefatory statements 
of the nature of a preliminary survey of the whole periods of the four and the 
two servitudes respectively, with which the writer immediately afterwards 
proceeds to deal in detail ; and (3) to the structure of the verse Judges 10 8 . 
This verse, as it stands in the Hebrew, is an introversion, giving first an event 
and its time, and then another time and its event. The words " that year " 
refer to the ist year of the Judgeship of Jair, in which the children of Ammon 
" broke and crushed " the children of Israel, and thereby recovered possession 
of Heshbon, and some part of the land of Israel, which they held during the 
22 years of Jair ; whilst the words " eighteen years " refer to the time when, 
immediately after the death of Jair, they subdued and oppressed " all the 
children of Israel " on both sides of the river Jordan. 

The 22 years of Jair will therefore be included in the Chronology as an 
entire period, complete in itself, and distinct from the 18 years of the 5th 
servitude under the children of Ammon, by which it is immediately succeeded. 
But neither of these two periods will be included in the 300 years of Jephthah 
(Judges ii 26 ), because in " that year," the ist year of Jair, the children of 
Ammon " broke and crushed " the children of Israel, threw off their yoke, 
and recovered possession of Heshbon, and other towns, on the east side of 
Jordan, so that Jephthah could not say that " Israel dwelt in Heshbon and 
her towns, and in Aroer and her towns, and in all the cities that be along 
by the coast of Arnon " (Judges 11 26 ) at any time during the 22 years of the 
Judgeship of Jair. Still less could he say that Israel dwelt in these cities 
at any time during the 18 years of the Ammonite oppression when all Israel, 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



on both sides of the Jordan, was completely subjugated and reduced to a state 
of servitude by the children of Ammon. 

I. The Structure of the Book of Judges as a whole. 

With regard to the first of these three important considerations, the structure 
of the Book of Judges as a whole, this will be to some extent apparent from 
the bird's eye view of the content of the Book of Judges given on page 48, in 
Vol. II, from which it will be seen that the book is a narrative of six apostasies, 
six servitudes, six cries to God, and six deliverances. The story gathers 
round the personalities of six deliverers and six other Judges, one Prophetess 
(Deborah) and one usurper King (Abimelech). The years of servitude, 
rest after deliverance, usurpation and Judgeship, are in each case unam- 
biguously stated, as also the facts that the deliverance of Shamgar from the 
Philistines took place during the oppression of Jabin (Jud. 3 31 , 5 6,7 ) and 
that the Judgeship of Samson was exercised during 20 out of the 40 years of 
the Philistine oppression (Jud. 15 20 , 16 3 1 ). The proof of the fact that the 
Judgeship of Eli is consecutive, and follows on immediately at the close of the 
40 years of the sixth servitude under the Philistines, lies in the structure of 
the Books of Judges, Ruth and 1 Samuel taken together. It is one continuous 
story throughout. The story is interrupted by three appendices, which are 
given as detailed or concrete illustrations of the period of the Judges, an 
outline or skeleton of the history of which has been given in the previous 
chapters. We have first an illustration of the idolatry of the time, the 
story of Micah and the Danites (Jud. 17-18). Next an illustration of the 
immorality of the time, the story of the Levite and the men of Gibeah (Judges 
19-21), and, by way of contrast, an idyllic picture of rustic piety and purity 
in the midst of infidelity and immorality. Then, in 1 Sam 1 \ the narrative 
is resumed. Take out the pictures, and the reading will be seen to be 
consecutive and continuous. There is, however, a change in the tone of the 
narrative as we pass from Judges 1-16 into 1 Sam. 1. Judges 1-16 gives 
the history of the times of the Judges properly so called. 1 Sam. 1-7 gives 
the history of the transition period from the Theocracy to the Monarchy. The 
difference is sufficient to account for the insertion of the three appendices, 
for in 1 Sam. 1 we turn down a page and commence a new chapter in Israel's 
history. But it must not be forgotten that the whole of the series of historical 
books from Genesis to 2 Kings is one consecutive, continuous narrative 
throughout. 

In order to make the matter clear we append here a bird's-eye view of 
the structure of the Books of Judges, Ruth and 1 Samuel. This will show 
the consecutive, continuous character of the whole narrative, and also the 
transition character of 1 Sam. 1-7. It will also give us a key to the inter- 
pretation of the difficult phrase "that year" in Judges 10 8 . It may be 
exhibited thus : — 



142 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



Bird's-Eye View of the Structure of the Book of Judges. 

Theocracy. 

Part I. — Four Servitudes. 
Jud. i 1 -^ 10 . Introduction. 

Jud. 2 11 " 23 . Preliminary survey or summary statement prefixed to the 
first four servitudes. 
Apostasy. — The children of Israel did evil in the sight of 
the Lord. 

Servitude. — And he delivered them into the hands of their 
enemies. 

Cry to God. — They groaned by reason of them that broke 

and crushed them. 
Deliverance. — The Lord raised up Judges and delivered 
them out of the hand of those that spoiled them. 
Jud. 3 7 . The children of Israel did evil. 

ist Servitude — Cushan, 8 years. Deliverance — OthnieL 
Rest 40 years. 
Jud. 3 12 . The children of Isarel did evil. 

2nd Servitude — Eglon, 18 years. Deliverance — Ehud. 
Rest 80 years. - 

(Jud. 3 31 ). Parenthesis. — And after him Shamgar, he also delivered Israel,. 

viz. during Jabin's oppression (see Jud. 5 6,7 ). This 
is not a continuation of the narrative, but an antici- 
patory summary statement of an event which took place 
during the period dealt with in the next paragraph. 
Jud. 4 1 . The children of Israel did evil when Ehud was dead. This con- 
nects the 80 years of rest by Ehud with the 20 years 
of the oppression by Jabin, without leaving any room 
for Shamgar 's deliverance between these two periods. 
3rd Servitude — Jabin, 20 years. Deliverance- — Barak. 
Rest 40 years. 
Jud. 6 1 . The children of Israel did evil. 

4th Servitude — Midian, 7 years. Deliverance — Gideon. 
Rest 40 years. 
Jud. 8 33 -9 57 . The Story of Abimelech. 

Jud. 8 33 . When Gideon was dead Abimelech 3 year-. 
Jud. 10 1-5 . Summary statement of two Judgeships. 

Jud. 10 1 . After Abimelech arose Tola. 

Judged 23 years. Died and was buried. 
Jud. 10 3 . After him arose Jair. 

Judged 22 years. Died and was buried. 



This last statement is anticipatory. The historian completes his account 
of Jair before commencing a new subject, though chronologically he has 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



only reached the first year of Jair. Cp. 2 Chron. 29 lm 2 , a summary statement 
of the whole of the reign of Hezekiah, followed in verse 3 by a detailed account 
of it, beginning with the events of the first year. 

Part II. — Two Servitudes. 

Jud. 10 6 ~ 16 . Preliminary survey or summary statement prefixed to the last 
two servitudes. 

Apostasy. — The children of Israel did evil in the sight of 
the Lord. 

Servitude. — He sold them into the hands of the Philistines 
and the children of Ammon. 

A. And they broke and crushed the children of Israel 

A. That year(=the 1st year of Jair). 

B. Eighteen years ( = after the last year of Jair). 

B. All the children of Israel on both sides of the Jordan. 

Cry to God. — The children of Israel cried unto the Lord, 

saying we have sinned. 
Refusal to Deliver. — Go, cry to the gods which ye have 

chosen ; let them deliver you. 
Repeated cry to God. — We have sinned. Deliver us this 

day only. 

Response. — His soul was grieved for the misery of Israel. 
Jud. io 17 -i2 6 . Details of the Ammonite oppression and deliverance by 
Jephthah. 

Jud. 12 7 ~ 15 . Summary statement of four Judgeships. 

Jud. 12 7 . Jephthah judged Israel 6 yrs., died and was buried 
Jud. 12 8 . Ibzan , „ 7 
Jud. 12 11 . Elon „ ,, 10 

Jud. 12 13 . Abdon „ „ 8 

Jud. 13 1 — 16 31 . Details of the Philistine oppression and Judgeship of Samson. 

(Jud. 15 20 ). Parenthesis. — Samson judged Israel in the days of the Phil- 
istines 20 years. 

Appendices. 

Jud. 17-18. Appendix 1. — Micah and the Danites — Idolatry. 
Jud. 19-21. Appendix 2. — The Levite and the men of Gibeah — immorality. 
Ruth. Appendix 3. — The story of Ruth — piety and purity in the 

midst of infidelity and immorality. 

Transition to Monarchy. 
1 Sam. 1-7. Judgeships of Eli and Samuel. 

Monarchy. 

1 Sam. 8-2 K. Saul, David and Solomon, and the Kings of Israel and Judah. 



i 4 4 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



2. The Special Character of the Summary Statements, Jud. 2 11 23 and 10 6 9 . 

From this analysis of the structure of the Book of Judges it will be seen 
that it is divided into two parts, each commencing with a summary statement 
of the fourfold cycle of events — apostasy, servitude, cry to God, deliverance 
— which are thereafter described in detail. 

The difficult verse, Judges 10 8 , occurs not in the continuous, consecutive 
narrative, but in the preliminary survey or summary statement of the last 
two servitudes, which are first mentioned together, and afterwards narrated 
in detail, the Ammonite oppression first, and then the Philistine. Though 
mentioned together in this summary way, they are two distinct servitudes, 
not one only, and they are consecutive, not contemporaiy. 

3. The Structure of the Verse Judges 10 8 . 

Jair was a Gileadite. He had 30 sons that rode on 30 ass colts, a sign 
of princely rank and governmental authority ; and they had 30 cities called 
Havoth-Jair, or the villages of Jair, in the land of Gilead. It is not said 
that Jair delivered Israel, but only that he judged Israel 22 years, but in 
Judges 2 18 we read that " when the Lord raised them up Judges then the 
Lord was with the Judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies 
all the days of the Judge," so that, although it is not said that the Lord " raised 
up " Jair, but only that he " arose," it is most probable that the writer means 
us to understand that the Ammonites " broke and crushed" the children 
of Israel in the first year of Jair in such a way that they were able to recover 
Heshbon and the territory to the south allotted to Reuben, but not Gilead 
and the territory to the north allotted to Gad, and not any of the rest of the 
of the Land of Israel, until the death of Jair, when they crossed the Jordan 
and completely subjected all Israel on both sides of the river and oppressed 
them for 18 years until deliverance came by Jephthah. 

The exact translation of the Hebrew of Judges 10 8 - 9 is as follows : — 

v. 8. A. And they broke and crushed the children of Israel 

A. In that year ( = the first year of Jair). 

B. Eighteen years ( = after the last year of Jair). 

B. All the Children of Israel who were beyond Jordan in the Land of 
the Amorites which is in Gilead. 
v. 9. " And the Children of Ammon crossed over the Jordan to fight even 
against Judah and against Benjamin, and against the 
house of Ephraim, and Israel had great distress." 

The construction of verse 8 is very difficult. The second sentence com- 
mencing with the words " eighteen years " begins very abruptly, and is 
elliptical, its verb having to be supplied from the first sentence. The meaning 
of this second sentence is expanded in the following verse. No other 
interpretation of the words makes the meaning more clear than that adopted 
above. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



145 



This interpretation, which makes the 22 years of Jair and the Ammonite 
oppression two complete and consecutive periods without any overlapping 
of the one by the other, is corroborated by the reckoning of St. Paul, who in 
Acts 13 19 ' 20 , gives a total of about 450 years for the period from the division 
of the Land by lot to the end of the Judgeship of Samuel. The figure is the 
exact sum of the number of years attributed to the servitudes, the years of 
rest, the usurpation and the Judgeships given in Judges and 1 Samuel 1-7, 
from the oppression of Cushan to the end of the Judgeship of Samuel, reckoning 
the 20 years of 1 Sam. 7 2 as the length of the Judgeship of Samuel. But as 
the number of years for the so-called Joshua- Judges chasm, from the division 
of the Land to the oppression of Cushan, is not specified in the Old Testament, 
and must have occupied some years, St. Paul allows an indefinite addition 
to the 450 years by prefixing to it the word " about." 

This interpretation is further corroborated by the fact that the 13 years 
which it gives to the so-called Joshua- Judges chasm, from the division of the 
Land to the 1st servitude under Cushan, makes up the years of the Theocracy 
from the Exodus to the 4th year of Solomon (omitting the six servitudes 
and the usurpation of Abimelech) to exactly 480 years, as stated in 1 Kings 6 1 . 

This interpretation of Jud. 10 8 is further supported by the fact that the 
only possible alternative interpretation of the words " that year," which 
makes them refer to the last year of Jair, would leave not a single year for the 
interval between the division of the Land and the oppression of Cushan. 
We may, therefore, regard the interpretation which makes " that year " in 
Jud. 10 8 the first year of Jair as correct. 

The determination of the length of the so-called Joshua- Judges Chasm, 
or the interval between the division of the Land and the oppression of Cushan, 
will then be arrived at in the manner indicated in the following Table. 



K 



146 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



THE SO-CALLED JOSHUA-JUDGES CHASM. 

From the Division of the Land (Jnd. 2 6 ) to the beginning of the 1st Servitude 

tinder Cushan (Jud. 3*). 



PERIODS. 


years. 




years. 


years. 


From the Conquest of Heshbon to its re-conquest by Amnion, 
probably m the 1st year of J air (J ud. 10 3 - 8 , 1 1 * b ) 












300 


DEDUCT. 








From Conquest of Heshbon to Entry (Ex. 12 40 41 , 40 1 7 , 








Deut. 2 14 - 37 , Josh. 4 19 , 5 6 ) 




1 




From Entry to Division of Land, 2253-2260 




7 




[Here follows the so-called Joshua- Judges Chasm] 








From 1st Servitude, under Cushan, to 1st Year of Jair, viz. : — 








1st Servitude, under Cushan (Jud. 3 s ) 


8 






Rest by Othniel (Jud. 3 1 *) 


40 






2nd Servitude, under Eglon (Jud. 3 1 4 ) 


18 






Rest by Ehud (Jud. 3 3 °) 


80 






Judgeship of Shamgar (Jud. 3 31 ) included in 3rd 








Servitude under Jabin (Jud. 5 6 - 7 ) 








3rd Servitude, under Jabin (Jud. 4 3 ) 


20 






Rest by Barak (Jud. 5 3 1 ) 


40 






4th Servitude, under Midian (Jud. 6 1 ) 

Rest by Gideon (Jud. 8 2 8 ) 


7 






40 






Usurpation of Abimelech (Jud. 9 2 2 ) 
Judgeship of Tola (Jud. 10 2 ) 


3 




287 


23 


279 


/.The so-called Joshua-Judges Chasm, from the Division of the"| 

Land to the 1st Servitude under Cushan . . . . j 


! 


1 - 

1 



We may now add to our Chronology the following additional link : — 

AN. HOM. 

2560. Division of the Land (see Chapter 15). 

13. Add 13 years, to the 1st Servitude under Cushan (Jud. 3 8 ) as 
determined by the above Table. 
2573. Beginning of 1st Servitude under Cushan. 



Chapter XVII. The Judges including Samuel = 450 Years. 

(an. hom. 2573-3023) 

The following Table exhibits the Chronology of the period of the Judges, 
from the 1st servitude under Cushan to the election of Saul. The years of 
servitude, rest, usurpation, and Judgeship, are set out in four different columns, 
and it will be seen that the four totals amount to exactly 450 years. St. Paul, 
in his address at Antioch in Pisidia, says : " He divided their land to them by 
lot. And after that he gave unto them Judges about the space of 450 years 
until (ews = up to and including) Samuel the Prophet." Acts 13 19, 20 . Here 
again the minutest accuracy is observed. 

It will be seen that the number of the years from the oppression of Cushan 
to the end of Samuel's Judgeship is not " about," but exactly 450 years. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



147 



St. Paul is, however, quite right in using the word " about," and he was 
compelled to use it in order to be accurate, because the period of which he 
is speaking is the period from the division of the Land to the end of the 
Judgeship of Samuel. It includes, therefore, the so-called Joshua- Judges 
chasm of 13 years, and as this is not specified in the Text of the Old Testament, 
and not included in the 450 years that are specified, St. Paul is obliged to allow 
for this space, and he does so quite naturally and quite accurately by 
describing this period as a period of " about 450 years." 



ISRAEL UNDER THE JUDGES. 



From the 1st Servitude, under Cushan to the Election of Saul. 



PERIODS. 


Servi- 
tude. 


Rest. 


Usur- 
pation. 


Judge- 
ship. 


1st Servitude, under Cushan 


8 




— 


— 


Rest by Othniel 




4.0 

r 






2nd Servitude, under Eglon 


18 








Rest by Ehud . . 




8O 






(Judgeship of Shamgar included in 3rd Servitude, 










under Jabin, Jud. 3 31 , 5 6 . 7 ) 










3rd Servitude, under Jabin 


20 








Rest by Barak 




40 






4th Servitude, under Midian 


7 








Rest by Gideon 




40 






Usurpation of Abimelech 






3 




Judgeship of Tola 










Judgeship of Jair 








22 


5th Servitude, under Amnion 


18 








Judgeship of Jehpthah 








~6 


Judgeship of Ibzan 








7 


Judgeship of Elon 








10 


Judgeship of Abdon 








8 


6th Servitude, under the Philistines 


40 








(Judgeship of Samson included in 6th Servitude, 








under the Philistines, Jud. 15 2 °) 










Judgeship of Eli 








40 


Judgeship of Samuel 








20 


(N.B. — 1 Sam. 7 1 3 - 1 7 is a Review, not a con- 










tinuation of the history) 










Totals 


1 1 1 


200 


3 


136 



THE WHOLE PERIOD OF THE JUDGES. 

Years of Servitude .. .. .. .. .. n 1 

Years of Rest . . . . . . 200 

Years of Usurpation . . . . . . . . . . 3 

Years of Judgeship .. .. .. .. 136 



450 



148 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



We are now in a position to continue the Chronology from the 1st servitude, 
under Cushan, to the election of Saul, and this is done in the following Table : — 

CHRONOLOGY OF THE PERIOD OF THE JUDGES. 

From the 1st Servitude, under Cushan to the Election of Saul. 

AN. HOM. 

2573. 1st Servitude, under Cushan (see Chapter 16). 

8. Add 8 years' Servitude under Cushan (Jud. 3 8 ). 
25817 Rest by Othniel. 

40. Add 40 years' Rest by Othniel (Jud. 3 11 ). 
2631. 2nd Servitude, under Eglon. 

18. Add 18 years' Servitude under Eglon (Jud. 3 14 ). 
2639. Rest by Ehud. 

Judgeship of Shamgar (Jud. 3 31 ) included in 20 years of 3rd 
Servitude, under Jabin (Jud. 5 6,7 ). 

80. Add 80 years' Rest by Ehud (Jud. 3 30 ). 
2719. 3rd Servitude, under Jabin. 

20. Add 20 years' Servitude under Jabin (Jud. 4 3 ). 
2739. Rest by Barak. 

40. Add 40 years' Rest by Barak (Jud. 5 31 ). 
2779. 4th Servitude, under Midian. 

7. Add 7 years' Servitude under Midian (Jud. 6 1 ). 
2786. Rest by Gideon. 

40. Add 40 years' Rest by Gideon (Jud. 8 28 ). 
2826. Usurpation by Abimelech. 

3. Add 3 years' Usurpation of Abimelech (Jud. 9 22 ). 
2829. Judgeship of Tola. 

23. Add 23 years' Judgeship of Tola (Jud. 10 2 ). 
2852. Judgeship of Jair. 

22. Add 22 years' Judgeship of Jair (Jud. 10 3 ). 
2874. 5th Servitude, under Ammon. 

18. Add 18 years' Servitude under Ammon (Jud. 10 8 ). 
2892. Judgeship of Jephthah. 

6. Add 6 years' Judgeship of Jephthah (Jud. 12 7 ). 
2898. Judgeship of Ibzan. 

7. Add 7 years' Judgeship of Ibzan (Jud. 12 9 ). 
2905. Judgeship of Elon. 

10. Add 10 years' Judgeship of Elon (Jud. 12 11 ). 
2915. Judgeship of Abdon. 

8. Add 8 years' Judgeship of Abdon (Jud. 12 14 ). 
2923. 6th. Servitude, under the Philistines. 

Judgeship of Samson 20 years (Jud. 16 3 x ) included in 40 years 
of 6th Servitude, under Philistines (Jud. 15 20 ). 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



2923. 6th Servitude, under the Philistines. 

40. Add 40 years' Servitude under Philistines (Jud. 13 1 ). 
2963. Judgeship of Eli. 

40. Add 40 years' Judgeship of Eli (1 Sam. 4 18 ). 
3003. Judgeship of Samuel. 

20. Add 20 years' Judgeship of Samuel, 1 Sam. 7 2 . (N.B. — 1 Sam. 7 13 ~ 
is a review, not a continuation of the history). 
3023. Election of Saul. 



Chapter XVIII. The Eli-Samuel Connection. 

From the Death of Eli to the beginning of the Reign of Saul — 20 years. 

(an. hom. 3003-3023) 

The so-called Joshua- Judges chasm fills the interval between the last dated 
event of the Seven Years' War of conquest, viz. the division of the Land by 
Joshua and the first dated event of the 450-year Period of the Judges, viz. 
the oppression of Cushan. It is determined with great difficulty, by means 
of [the fact implied in Jephthah's message to the children of Ammon 
(Jud. 11 14 - 28 ). 

The argument of Jephthah is this. The children of Ammon were dis- 
possessed by the Amorites, not by the children of Israel. The children of Israel 
obtained their title to the land by the conquest of Sihon, the Amorite King of 
Heshbon, which took place in the year before the entry into Canaan, when 
they took possession of " all the coasts of the Amorites from Arnon even 
unto Jabbok." 

The right of conquest had been supported and maintained by the fact 
of the uninterrupted possession of the land in spite of the attack of Balak, 
King of Moab, to wrest it from them, which had failed. The Lord God of 
Israel had dispossessed the Amorites and given the land to Israel and their 
claim had been made good by their uninterrupted possession of it for a 
period of 300 years from the conquest of Heshbon in the year before the entry 
into Canaan to " that year," the year in which the children of Ammon 
" broke and crushed " the children of Israel and recovered the territory 
which Israel had taken from the Amorites, but which the children of Ammon 
now claimed as originally belonging to them. 

With great difficulty, but with a considerable degree of historic certainty 
we have fixed upon an interpretation of the words " that year " in Jud. 10 8 , 
which identifies it with the first year of Jair, the year which immediately 
succeeded, but which was not included in the 300 years of Jephthah. 

We now approach the discussion of another chronological problem of 
almost equal difficulty and complexity, and one which has given rise to an 
equal number of divergent interpretations or rather, " guesses at truth," 
there being no direct statement as to the exact length of the period from the 
death of Eli to the end of Samuel's Judgeship at the election of Saul. 

The determination of the number of years in this period which coincides 



150 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



exactly with the administration oj Samuel is, however, quite simple and quite 
decisive. The administration of Samuel occupies the interval of those twenty 
years mentioned in i Sam. y 2 . 

These years include the fraction of the year during which the Ark was 
for 7 months in the land of the Philistines, and the whole period of its stay 
at Kirjath-jearim down to the battle of Mizpeh, at which the Philistines 
were defeated and the cities which they had taken from Israel were restored 
to Israel from Gath even to Ekron. 

Whereupon the people began that clamour for a King which led to the 
election of Saul. 

This interpretation is necessitated by a proper understanding of the structure 
of i Samuel 7. The analysis of the chapter by Professor Henry Preserved 
Smith into two sections derived from two sources or documents, is in the 
highest degree subjective and fanciful, and rests upon no assured basis of 
objective fact. He assumes the existence of an " Eli document " which 
begins with 1 Sam. 4 or 5, and extends to the end of 1 Sam. 7 2 , the phrase 
" for it was 20 years " being eliminated by Stenning as a subsequent inter- 
polation or addition by a late redactor. The rest of the chapter Prof. H. P. 
Smith regards as derived from a " Samuel document," the symbol for which 
is the abbreviation Sm. ; whilst Stenning makes 1 Sam. j 2 -8 22 the work of 
a second Elohistic narrator, who is designated by the symbol E 2 . 

An analysis of the structure of the chapter shows that the first verse 
belongs to the narrative contained in Chapter 6. There is no reason to doubt 
the uncontradicted tradition preserved in the Talmudic Tract Baba Bathra, 
that the author of the first 24 chapters of this book was Samuel himself, 
and there is no real ground for the assumption of interpolations and later 
additions by subsequent editors of the Book and redactors of its text. At 
verse 2 a new epoch is reached and a new subject is introduced, and this should 
have been marked by the division of the chapter, or the placing of a paragraph 
mark (^[) at this point. 

The author proceeds to tell the story of the first great religious revival 
brought about by the 20 years of Samuel's quiet, unobtrusive, but pervasive 
religious teaching, at the close of which the people returned to God, and under 
the leadership of Samuel obtained a great victory over their enemies at Mizpeh, 
and thus recovered their independence (1 Sam. 7 2 " 12 ). 

This brings the narrative of the Judgeship of Samuel to a close, and the 
next consecutive event is the rejection of the Theocracy and the demand 
for the appointment of a king in 1 Sam. 8. 

But before finally dismissing the closing period of the Theocracy, the 
author sums up in a few brief and pregnant sentences the whole story of the 
Judgeship of Samuel, down to the appointment of King Saul, and intimates 
that not only down to that point but beyond it, even all the days of his life, 
Samuel continued to act as Judge. The summary of the Judgeship of Samuel 
is contained in 1 Sam. 7 13_1T . Like the summary of the reign of Saul, in 
1 Sam. 14 47 " 52 , it is retrospective and prospective, not continuous. It tells 
us that the hand of the Lord had been against the Philistines all the days 
of Samuel, and that this antagonism had now culminated in the great victory 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



at Mizpeh, as a result of which the cities which the Philistines had taken from 
Israel were restored to Israel, and a period of peace ensued, during which 
the Philistines came no more into the land of Israel. 

This summary statement also tells us something of the method of Samuel's 
administration. He was accustomed to go on circuit from Bethel to Gilgal, 
and from Gilgal to Mizpeh, after which he returned to his home at Ramah, 
where he established a centre of religious worship, and where he exercised 
his function as Israel's Judge all the days of his life, for he continued his work 
as Judge even after the appointment of King Saul. 

Since i Sam. 7 1 3-1 7 is a retrospective and prospective summary of the 
administration of Samuel, the continuity of the narrative will be exhibited 
by connecting 1 Sam. 8 4 , the gathering of the Elders to Samuel to demand 
a King, with 1 Sam. 7 12 , the setting up of the stone Ebenezer in memory 
of the great victory at Mizpeh, and the period of 20 years named in 1 Sam. 7 2 
must be interpreted as covering the whole period of Samuel's administration 
previous to the victory of Mizpeh and the election of Saul, by which it was 
immediately followed. 

This result is obtained from a close attention to the structure of the chapter. 
It is obtained from a careful consideration of the statements made in the 
Text itself, and it may be accepted as a true exposition of the author's intention 
and meaning. 

But it does not stand alone. It is corroborated, and indeed necessitated, 
by the figures given by St. Paul in Acts 13 19-20 , in which he states that the 
period from the division of the Land up to and including (ecus) Samuel was 
a period of about 450 years. The word " about " is introduced to cover 
the period between the division of the Land and the oppression of Cushan. 

The 450 years is made up of the 19 figures specified in the Book of Judges 
(including 1 Sam. 1-7,) as the number of years contained in each of the six 
servitudes, the four periods of rest, the one usurpation of Abimelech and the 
remaining eight Judgeships, of which the last is the Judgeship of Samuel, and 
which must have been a period of 20 years, as otherwise the years of the period 
as defined by St. Paul would not have amounted to the total of 450 years. 

There can be no doubt that, whether the Apostle Paul was right or wrong, 
in the figures which he gives, he obtained them by the process of simple 
addition. He took each figure as it is given in the text of the Old Testament 
narrative of the period under review, and the result was as follows. Nobody 
can make it either one year more or one year less : — 



152 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



Details of the 450 years of St. Paul in Acts 13 2 °. 

YEARS. 



Cushan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 

Othniel . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 

Eglon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 

Ehud . . . . . . . . . . . . v . . 80 

Jabin . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 

Barak . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 

Midian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

Gideon . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 

Abimelech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

Tola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • 23 

Jair . . . . . . . . . . 22 

Ammon . . . . . . • . . . . 18 

Jephthah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

Ibzan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

Elon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 

Abdon .-' . . . . 8 

Philistines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 

Eli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 

Samuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 



Total 450 years. 

This result is further corroborated by its agreement with the total of 480 
years given in 1 Kings 6 1 , which is made up of all the figures given for the 
various periods of the history from the Exodus to the commencement of the 
building of the Temple in the 4th year of Solomon, always omitting the years 
of the six servitudes, and the one usurpation, as not to be included in the 
reckoning of the years of Isra-El, governed by God, and also the years of 
Shamgar's Judgeship, as falling within the period of the oppression of Jabin, 
and those of Samson as falling within the period of the oppression of the 
Philistines. 

The Table on p. 49, in Vol. II, Chronological Tables, gives a complete 
view of the entire period of the Judges, apportioning the number of years 
assigned to each period in the Text of the Old Testament, and showing its 
agreement with the number of years in the longer periods of the 300 and the 
480 years specified in the Old Testament, and the 450 years specified in the 
New Testament. 

Chapter XIX. Comparative Chronology — Moses to Samuel. 

The so-called Samuel or Eli-Saul chasm, which fills the interval between the 
last year of Eli and the 1st of Saul, has been as great a puzzle to the 
Chronologers as the so-called Joshua- Judges chasm. They all persist in the 
error of supposing that the period is not definitely implied in the statements 
of the Old Testament, and they either fall back upon Josephus or some other 
unauthoritative source, or else proceed to fill the gap by . setting down the 
figure which appeals most strongly to their own imagination. The result is the 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 153 



production of an immense variety of discordant figures obtained by guesswork, 
all alike destitute of any semblance of authority or value. The following 
Table may be compared with the list of guesses hazarded by Chronologers, 
ancient and modern, as to the length of the period of the so-called Joshua- 
Judges chasm, given in Chap. 16. 

Eli-Saul Connection. 

From the Death of Eli to the beginning of the Reign of Saul. 
According to the subjective opinions of Chronologers, ancient and modern, 
or as Clinton phrases it, as " variously supplied by conjecture ." 



YEARS 

Jewish Chronicle (included in reign of Saul) . . . . . . o 

Eusebius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o 

Petavius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o 

Clement of Alexandria . . . . . . . . . . 0 or 9 

Theophilus . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 or 23 

Josephus (Eli and Saul =52) . . . . . . 12 or 23 

De Tournemine in Du Fresnoy . . . . . . . . . . 20 

Syncellus . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 or 40 

Ussher (Eli omitted as contemporary with Philistine Servitude) 21 

Hales (Eli and Samuel =72) . . . . . . . . . . 32 

Clinton (32 years are not too much to assume) . . . . 32 

Africanus . . . . . . . . . . .. 38 or 50 or 108 

Willis J. Beecher (Waiting 20, Samuel 19) . . . . . . 39 

Companion Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 

Jackson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 

A.V. Margin=Bishop Lloyd (b.c. 1141-1095) . . . . . . 46 

Paschal Chronicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 



This method of writing history, which records only those facts and dates 
which lie on the surface, leaving the gaps between them to be " supplied 
by conjecture," is not one that will commend itself to the modern student 
of Biblical Chronology. 

History and geography are descriptive Sciences. They are not, like 
physics, chemistry and biology, general Sciences in which hypotheses are 
allowable, because they can always be tested and verified or disproved by 
observation and experiment. The Sciences of history and geography depend 
entirely on direct observation and testimony, and where that is wanting 
they lose the character of Sciences altogether, unless the problems encountered 
can be solved by historical induction from well attested facts from which 
the information required can be deduced by way of inference. It is in this 
manner alone that the problems of Biblical Chronology can be solved, and the 
Joshua- Judges, the Samuel and other apparent chasms in the continuity 
of the Chronology bridged over. 

It is for this purpose that the long periods of Scripture are given ; to them 



154 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



recourse must be had in every case in which there is, a break in the continuity 
of the dates given in the narrative of the history. The result will show that 
every gap or chasm in the Old Testament history can be bridged over, and that 
the materials given in the Text of the Old Testament are sufficient to construct 
a continuous Chronology of dated events from the creation of Adam to the 
" cutting off " of the Messiah, without recourse to any outside source of infor- 
mation, or to the adoption of problematical results " supplied by conjecture/' 

The 480 years of 1 Kings 6 1 . 

The long period of 480 years mentioned in 1 Kings 6 1 has occasioned a 
considerable amount of perplexity. Some Chronologers, like Ussher, have 
adopted it into their chronological system and thereby vitiated their entire 
scheme from that point onward to the extent of 114 years. Others, like 
Jackson, Hales and Clinton, regard it as "a forgery foisted into the Text," and 
reject it altogether. Others, again, have not only accepted the number 480 
as authentic, and bent the Chronology of the Old Testament to make it accord 
with this figure, but they have even ventured upon the task of correcting 
St. Paul, and emended the Text of the New Testament in Acts i3 17 " 2 o in 
order to bring it into accord with the 480 years of 1 Kings 6 1 . 

This " amended," or rather this corrupted Text, is the basis of the translation 
of Acts 13 17-20 in the Revised Version, a rendering which absolutely precludes 
the possibility of putting any intelligible construction on the words of Acts 

T o 19-20 

The Authorised Version translates the true Text of §Ti. D 2 , E, H, L, P, and 
many others, itemD*d., syr., ar., aeth., " when He had destroyed seven nations 
in the land of Canaan, He divided their land to them by lot. And after that 
He gave unto them Judges about the space of 450 years until Samuel the 
prophet." 

The Revised Version translates the " emended " Text of Gb 1 N A, B, C, and 
7 cursives, which yields this nonsense, " when He had destroyed seven nations 
in the land of Canaan, He gave them their land for an inheritance for about 
450 years ; and after these things He gave them Judges until Samuel the 
prophet." 

The great blot of the R.V. throughout the New Testament, is the over- 
rating of the authority of Westcott and Hort's pet MSS. and B., two MSS. 
regarded as amongst the earliest and best authorities by one school of Textual 
critics led by Westcott and Hort, but really two faulty copies carelessly made 
by Eusebius for the Emperor Constantine, containing numerous errors, and 
by no means worthy to be adopted as a standard Text, as is clearly proved 
by an opposing school of Textual critics led by Burgon and Scrivener. 

How could St. Paul have been guilty of perpetrating a sentence which 
limits the inheritance of the Land by the people of Israel to the time of Eli, 
and then placing the period of the 14 Judges between Eli and Samuel ! 
Fortunately, the Authorised Version adheres to the better MS. authorities, 
and gives not only an intelligible but also a true rendering of Paul's great 
speech at Antioch in Pisidia. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



155 



We will first prove (I) that the true extent of the period from the Exodus 
to the 4th year of Solomon is 594 years : (1) from the Text of the Old Testament, 
and (2) from the address of St. Paul at Antioch recorded in the New Testament 
(Acts I3 17-20 ). We will then explain (II) the nature of the mistake of 
Ussher, who is followed in this matter by Bishop Lloyd, in the dates given in 
the margin of the A.V., and finally we will explain (III) the real significance 
of the phrase " the 480th year," as used by the author of the Text, 1 Kings 6 1 , 
and the exact meaning which he intended to convey thereby. 



1. From the Exodus to the 4th year of Solomon = 594 years. 

I. And first the true extent of the period which lies between the two epochs, 
the Exodus and the 4th year of Solomon, in which the building of the Temple 
was commenced, is 594 years. Our first step is (1) to prove the accuracy of 
this figure (594 years) from the Text of the Old Testament. The Table of the 
25 dated events of the 480 years of 1 Kings 6 1 J given on p. 49, in Vol. II, contains 
full details of the entire period, together with the chapter and verse references 
which prove the truth of the number assigned to each dated event, except 
the 13 years of the Joshua- Judges connection and the 20 years, of the Eli-Saul 
connection, detailed proof of the length of which is given in chapters 16 
and 18. The Table is as follows : — 



156 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



Chronology of the Period from the Exodus to the 4th year of Solomon. 
(1) According to the Old Testament. 

1. The Wilderness Period . . . . . . . . . . 40 years. 

2. The Seven Years' War .... . . . . . . . . 7 „ 

3. The Joshua- Judges Connection . . . . . . 13 

4. 1st Servitude (Cushan) . . . . . . . . . . 8 

5. Rest by Othniel 40 ,, 

6. 2nd Servitude (Eglon) . . . . . . . . 18 

7. Rest by Ehud 80 

Judgeship of Shamgar included in 3rd Servitude (Jabin) — 

8. 3rd Servitude (Jabin) . . . . . . . . . . 20 

9. Rest by Barak . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 

10. 4th Servitude (Midian) . . . . . . . . . . 7 „ 

11. Rest by Gideon 40 „ 

12. Usurpation of Abimelech . . . . . . . . . . 3 „ 

13. Judgeship of Tola . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 

14. Judgeship of Jair . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 

15. 5th Servitude (Amnion) . . . . . . . . . . 18 

16. Judgeship of Jephthah . . . . . . . . . . 6 

17. Judgeship of Ibzan . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 >> 

18. Judgeship of Elon . . . . . . . . . . 10 

19. Judgeship of Abdon . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 

20. 6th Servitude (Philistines) . . . . . .• . . . . 40 ,, 

Judgeship of Samson included in 6th Servitude (Philistines) — 

21. Judgeship of Eli . . . . . . . . . . . . 4° 

22. Eli-Saul Connection = Judgeship of Samuel . . . . 20 

23. Reign of Saul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4° « 

24. Reign of David . . . . . . . . . . • . 4° » 

25. Reign of Solomon to 4th year . . . . . . • • 4 >> 

Total 594 » 

Our next step is to prove the accuracy of this figure (594 years), from the 
•address of St. Paul at Antioch, in Pisidia, recorded in Acts 13 17-2 2 so far as 
it covers the same ground. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 157 

Chronology of the Period from the Exodus to the 4th year of Solomon. 



(2) According to St. Paul in Acts 13 





Years 


Years 


PERIODS. 


stated 


omitted 


by St. 


by St. 




Paul. 


Paul. 


1 . _L i 1 V V -LA VJ. V_/ J. ll^/OO X \->l. 1UU •• •• 


AO 




2. The Seven Years' War 




7 


3. Division of the Land to 1st Servitude (Cushan) 




13 


4. After that He gave unto them Judges, until (=ews i.e., 






up to and including) Samuel the Prophet 


450 




5. Saul 


40 




6. David 




40 


7. Solomon, to his 4th year 




4 


Period covered by St. Paul's statement 


530 


64 


Period omitted from St. Paul's statement 


64 




Total . . 


594 





The ground covered by St. Paul's figures alone exceeds the 480 years of 
1 Kings 6 1 , to which has to be added the whole of the 40 years of the reign 
of David and three smaller periods, which brings the total for the entire period 
up to 594 years, in exact accordance with the text of the Old Testament. 



2. Ussher's mistaken Interpretation of 1 Kings 6 1 . 

II. We now proceed to explain the nature of the mistake of Ussher, whose 
dates were first printed, with some slight modifications, in the margin of the 
A.V. in Bishop Lloyd's Bible, published a.d. 1701. The dates in the margin 
of the A.V. are in the main exceedingly accurate and reliable. Those in the 
margin of the Book of Genesis are correct to the last detail. Ussher's dates 
are seriously astray only (1) in respect of this period, which Ussher assumes 
to be a period of 480 instead of 594 years, an error of 114 years which vitiates 
to that extent all previous dates expressed in terms B.C., and all subsequent 
dates expressed in terms a.m. or an. hom. ; (2) in respect of the period of Ezra, 
Nehemiah and Esther, perhaps the most difficult and perplexing chronological 
period in the whole of the Old Testament ; and (3) in the marginal note to 
2 Kings 15 1 , in accordance with which Ussher abridges the Chronology by a 
period of 11 years, by dating the accession of Uzziah (Azariah) from the 16th 
year of Jeroboam II instead of from his 27th year, thereby omitting an inter- 
regnum of 11 years after the reign of Amaziah of Judah, and reducing the 
interregnum after Jeroboam II of Israel from 22 years to 11 years. 

Ussher's method of reckoning the Chronology of the Judges abridges the 
period from the division of the Land to the accession of Saul by exactly 114 



*5* 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



years. This is done intentionally and purposely, the object being to cut off 
114 of the 594 years between the Exodus and the 4th year of Solomon in order 
to c rowd all the events between these points into the 480 years of 1 Kings 6 1 . 
Ussher's error in this period may be tabulated as follows : — 

Chronology of the Period from the Exodus to the \th year of Solomon. 
Table of Ussher's Mistakes. 



TOO TOO 



Joshua- Judges Connection 


EARS. 

31 instead of 


13 


MUCH. 
= 18 


LITTLE. 


Rest by Othniel . . 


62 


40 


= 22 




Rest by Ehud 


20 


80 




60 


Rest by Barak 


33 


40 




7 


Rest by Gideon 


9 


40 




3i 


Abimelech 


4 


3 


= I 




Jair 


4 


22 




18 


Eli contemporary with the Philistine Servitude 


0 


40 




40 


Eli-Saul Connection (Samuel Judgeship) 


21 


20 


= I 










42 


156 


Deduct errors in excess 








42 


Net abridgement of the Chronology 






114 



Ussher's dates are quite correct down to the division of the Land, an. hom. 2560 
=:B.c. 1444 (Josh. 14 1 , A.V. margin). He then omits these 114 years in order 
to square his Chronology with the 480 years of 1 Kings 6 1 . In order to secure 
this result he assumes that the figures for some of the periods of rest are figures 
that include the years of the previous servitude, and that the Judgeship of Eli 
is contemporary with the Philistine oppression. Consequently his date 
for the accession of Saul is an. hom. 2909 = B.C. 1095 (1 Sam. n 14 , A.V. 
margin) instead of the true date which is an. hom. 3023, or just 114 years later 
than Ussher's date. 

3. The real Significance of the Phrase "the 480th year," in 1 Kings 6 K 

III. We now turn to the examination of the real significance of the phrase 
" the 480th year " as used by the author in 1 Kings 6 8 , with a view to ascer- 
taining the exact meaning which he intended to convey to his readers by the 
use of it. 

The Text is undoubtedly genuine, though many attempts have been made 
to alter, or to get rid of it. Thus the LXX. has " the 440th year." Jackson 
regards the number 480 as spurious. Clinton rejects it. Hales boldly declares 
it to be " a forgery foisted into the Hebrew Text." 

The indefatigable Petavius, on the contrary, not only adhered to the Hebrew- 
verity, reprobating every departure from or emendation of the Massoretic Text, 
but actually pronounced an anathema against those " who dared to assert 
that the number 480 years was corrupt." 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 159 



A glance at the Table of the 480 years of 1 Kings 6 1 (see Vol. II, Chronological 
Tables, p. 49) will at once disclose the fact that the number 480 is arrived at by 
omitting from the 594 years of the entire period, the in years of the six servi- 
tudes and the 3 years of the usurpation of Abimelech. 

The writer is not computing the Chronology of the world. He is computing 
the Chronology of Isra-El, i.e. of the chosen people as Governed-by-God, in other 
words, he is computing the years of the Theocracy that lie between these two 
crucial epochs, the Exodus at which it began and the commencement of the 
building of the Temple ; at the dedication of which, just 10 years later, the 
full cycle of seventy-sevens of these Theocratic years was completed. The 
dedication of the Temple is manifestly an event of first-rate importance in the 
history of the religion of Israel, and in the relation of Israel to the government 
of Jehovah. 

Hebrew names compounded of the passive participle and the Divine 
name El, are intended to immortalize that special form of the activity of 
God which the action of the verb denotes. At Peni-El, " faced by God," Jacob 
the " heeler," who had outwitted Esau and outbargained Laban, and prevailed 
with men, became Isra-El, " Governed-by-God.' ' Similarly Samu-El, " heard 
by God," denotes a child of prayer (1 Sam. 1 2 °) and a man of prayer (1 Sam. 
7 9 , 8 6 , 12 19 - 23 , 15 11; Ps. 99 6 ; Jer. 15 1). Dani-El, " judged by God," a 
man whose judgment is not his own but God's. 

Why, then, are these 114 years of servitude and usurpation omitted ? 
Because the author is computing the years of the Theocracy, of the government 
of God, of Isra-El, and during those years Israel was not Isra-El, not governed 
by God, but under the heel of the oppressor and the usurper. Hence they 
are not included in the Theocratic years of the reckoning of God, though they 
are reckoned in the computation of the years of the age of the World. 

The method appears strange and almost impossible to the modern mind, 
with its highly developed historical sense, its worship of truth, its keen scent 
for fact, and its pantheistic indifference to distinctions of good and evil. Never- 
theless, there are days in the history of individuals and years in the history 
of the nations which we would fain blot out of the calendar of time. Job 
desired for the day of his birth that it might perish, that it might " not be 
joined to the days of the year, nor come into the number of the months." 
We cannot deal thus with the objective facts and events of time, but we can 
with the chronicle and the record of them. 

The monarchs of Assyria, and other nations of antiquity, left copious records 
of their conquests and their victories, but they did not chronicle their disasters 
and their defeats. The nations of the East were accustomed to treat their 
history in this way. They kept account of the years of prosperity, but they 
omitted from their Chronology altogether the years of national humiliation 
and disgrace. We do not write our histories in this way, but 

" East is East and West is West, 
And never the twain shall meet." 

It is a first principle of statistical Science that no list of figures compiled 
for one purpose should be used for another purpose. The purpose of the 



i6o THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



compiler determines the classification and hence the number of the units. AH 
kinds of statistics are lawful if we use them lawfully. 

If I am asked the duration of the Kingdom of England from the accession 
of William the Conqueror to that of Queen Victoria, I reply 1837 ~ I0 66 = 771 
years. But if the purpose of the enquiry is to institute a comparison between 
a monarchy and a republic then I must deduct the 11 years marked " Abasi- 
leutus," or " Commonwealth," between the reigns of Charles I and Charles II, 
and possibly other periods of Regency, and the 771 years of the duration of 
the Kingdom will be reduced to 760 or something less. 

Now the writer of 1 Kings 6 1 is computing the years of the Theocracy, the 
years of God's rule, the years of Isra-El, when she was herself, when she was 
isra-El, when she was Governed-by-God, and the sum total of these years is 
correctly given. 

During the years of the servitudes the people of Israel were not ruled-by- 
God, for " He delivered them into the hands of Spoilers that spoiled them, and 
sold them into the hands of their enemies round about." He sold them into 
the hand of Cushan-rishathaim. They served Eglon — not Jehovah. He 
sold them into the hand of Jabin. He delivered them into the hand of Midian. 
Abimelech reigned over Israel — not God. He sold them into the hands of 
the Philistines and into the hands of the children of Ammon. These are 
the keynotes of the history of the periods of oppression and usurpation. 

It is abundantly clear that these are no Theocratic years at all, and cannot 
be included in the reckoning of the years of God when He ruled over Israel 
and Israel served Him. Nothing can be clearer than the fact that these are 
the years which the writer of 1 Kings 6 1 omits, except the fact that he omits 
them intentionally and purposely, and does not for a moment pretend to be 
making an ordinary chronological statement. He does not even say that the 
space between the two epochs was a period of 480 years. He records a fact 
which took place in the 480th year, by which he means the 480th theocratic 
year after the children of Israel were come up out of the land of Egypt. 

Contemporary Events in Egypt. 

There are no synchronisms between the history of Israel during the period 
from the birth of Moses to the end of the administration of Samuel (an. hom. 2433 
-3023), and the history of Egypt, Assyria and Babylon, or Greece, either in 
the literary records which have been preserved to us, or in the Monumental 
Inscriptions that have been discovered in recent times. 

With regard to Egypt, the identification of the Pharaoh of the oppression 
has not yet been established. We have to choose between two rival schools. 
Those who adopt the Long Chronology identify the Pharaoh of the Exodus 
with Achencheres, Amosis or Amenophis, one of the Pharaohs of the 18th 
dynasty, and date the Exodus somewhere near the year B.C. 1500. Those 
who adopt the Short Chronology identify the Pharaoh of the Exodus with 
Merenptah (also called Amenophis in the story of Manetho), the son of Rameses 
the Great, one of the Pharaohs of the 19th dynasty, and date the Exodus 
somewhere near B.C. 1300. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 161 

According to those who adopt the Short Chronology , the Pharaoh who " made 
the children of Israel to serve with rigour " (Ex. i 1 3 ) and " made their lives 
bitter with hard bondage" (Ex. I 14 ), the Pharaoh for whom "they built 
treasure cities Pithom and Raamses " (Ex. i 11 ), and who died sometime after 
Moses was 40 years old (Ex. 2 23 with Acts y 23 - 3 °), was Rameses II, whose 
long reign of 67 years, and whose extensive and enormous Monumental 
remains ought to form a distinct chronological landmark. 

The Short Chronology rests upon the identification of the Pharaoh of the 
Exodus with Merenptah, whose reign is dated B.C. 1328-1309. But the only 
authority for this identification is the account of the Exodus given by Manetho 
and preserved in Josephus, who, however, regards it as of little or no authority. 

The story is that the King, whose name is given as Menophis or Amenophis, 
but who must be identified with Merenptah the Son of Rameses II, 
resolved to propitiate the gods by purging the land of Egypt of all 
lepers and unclean persons. These, to the number of 80,000, were banished 
to the city of Avaris (Pelusium). Here they chose for their leader an 
apostate priest of Heliopolis, whose name, Osarseph, was changed to 
Moses. He gave them new laws, bidding the people to sacrifice the sacred 
animals. He fortified the city, and called m the aid of the shepherds who had 
been expelled from Avaris and had settled in Jerusalem. These now advanced 
to Avaris with an army of 200,000 men. " The King of Egypt marched against 
them with an army of 300,000, but returned to Memphis through fear of an 
ancient prophecy. He then fled to Ethiopa, whence he returned after an 
absence of 13 years, drove the rebels out of Egypt, and pursued them to the 
frontier of Syria." (Philip Smith's Ancient History). 

The story evidently confuses reminiscences of the Hyksos or Shepherd 
Kings of the 18th dynasty (c. 1500) with the Exodus of the Israelites. It 
is a manifest invention of the priests of Egypt, a perverted Egyptian version 
of the great national disaster by which the chariots and the horsemen and all 
the hosts of Pharaoh were overtaken when " the Lord overthrew the 
Egyptians in the midst of the Sea." The mention of lepers recalls the sign 
of Moses' leprous hand. The people's choice of Moses as their leader, their 
acceptance of new laws at his hands, the mention of Jerusalem and the 
description of Moses as an apostate priest, one therefore who was " learned 
in all the wisdom of the Egyptians," may be regarded as so many dim reflections 
of the underlying truth which the legend perverts and yet preserves. The 
name of the King of Egypt — Amenophis, though he is here identified with 
Merenptah of the 19th dynasty, is more probably that of the real Amenophis 
of the 18th dynasty. 

The Long Chronology rests upon the identification of the Pharaoh of the 
Exodus with one of the Egyptian Kings of the 18th dynasty, whom Africanus 
calls Amosis, whose date is somewhere about B.C. 1525, and whom he describes 
as the first King of the 18th dynasty. 

But both the Greek and the Armenian copies of Eusebius place the Exodus 
under the 9th King of the 18th dynasty, whose name was Achencheres, and 
who was either the son or the grandson of Amenophis III. 

The history of the Empire of the Pharaohs for this period is full of 



162 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



•obscurities. It was a time of continual revolution and civil discord. Revolts 
•occurred in most of the provinces, and disorder reigned for nearly half a century 
after the death of Amenophis III. 

The following dates have been assigned to the Exodus by various members 
of these two rival schools. 

T „ f Pharaoh — one of the Kings of the 18th dynasty. 

The Long Chronology - „ , ' 6 1 7 y 

I Exodus = c. 1500 b.c. 



B.C. 

The Hebrew Text (according to Ussher) . . . . . . 1491 

Ussher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1491 

A.V. Margin (Bishop Lloyd) . . . . . . . . . . 1491 

Bengel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1497 

Bede . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1499 

Willis J. Beecher . . . . . . . . . . . . 1501 

Eusebius (Achencheres, 9th King, iSth Dynasty) . . . . 1512 

Africanus (Amosis, 1st King, 18th Dynasty) . . . . . . 1525 

Petavius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1531 



i Pharaoh = Merenptah, son of Rameses II, one of 
The Short Chronology I the Kings of the 19th dynasty. 



I Exodus = c. 1300 b.c. 

B.C. 

Jewish Rabbinical Tradition a.m. 2447 ... . . . . 1314 

Owen C. Whitehouse (Angus' Bible Handbook) . . . . 1320 

Baron Bunsen . . . . . . . . . . . . 1328 

Lepsius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1328 



The theory of Lepsius has now been abandoned by recent scholars, and 
a new theory framed by Mahler, Edouard Meyer and others, has taken its 
place. Hence we have a third school of Chronologers and a still shorter 
Chronology, amongst the advocates of which the following names deserve 
mention : — 

1st year of Merenptah. 



A. H. Sayce . . . . . . 1280 

E. A. W. Budge (British Museum Guide) . . . . . . 1263 

Breasted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1225 

Flinders Petrie . . . . . . . . . . . . 1207 



All Egyptian dates for this period are, however, purely conjectural. The 
date of the Exodus is fixed quite definitely in the Hebrew Text, and as there 
is nothing certainly known in the records of Egypt to conflict with the Hebrew 
date there is no reason why it should not be accepted. The Exodus occurred on 
the 14th of Nisan, in the year an. hom. 2513, a year which would be expressed 
by Ussher as B.C. 1492, but in terms of the scheme of the present writer as 
B.C. 1530 (Bible dates), and in terms of the ordinary received Chronology as 
B.C. 1612 (Ptolemaic dates). 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



163 



There are no synchronisms during this period, an. hom. 2433-3023 in 
Babylonian history. The contemporary monarchs were the Kings of the 
Kassite dynasty (b.c. 1780-1203), the dynasty of Isin (b.c. 1203-1030), the 
Dynasty of Elam (b.c. 1030-1025) and the second dynasty of Babylon 
(b.c. 1025-730) (Prof. Jastrow's dates). 

There are no synchronisms during this period with the events of Assyrian 
history. Babylon was conquered by Tilgath-in-Aristi I (son of Shalmaneser I), 
King of Assyria about B.C. 1270. The kings of the daughter colony, 
Assyria, continued to rule the mother city, Babylon, from this time onward 
for about 600 years, till the destruction of Nineveh by Nabopolassar, King of 
Babylon, and Cyaxares the Mede, in or before the year B.C. 606. 

There are no synchronisms during this period with the history of Greece. 
The date usually assigned to the taking of Troy is B.C. 1184. Sir Isaac 
Newton places it in the year B.C. 904. 




PERIOD III. THE MONARCHY— i Sam. 8 to 2 Kings. 



Chapter XX. Saul, David and Solomon. 
/. Saul. 

Very little is known of Saul in the way of Chronology. The Old Testament 
gives neither the year of his coronation, the length of his reign, nor the year 
of his death. 

There is only one date given for his reign, and that is to Commentators 
and Revisers, both ancient and modern, a puzzle and a mystery. In 
1 Sam. 13 1 we read, " Saul reigned one year ; and when he had reigned 
two years over Israel " he established a standing army. The meaning of this 
verse unquestionably is that Saul had now, at this point in the narrative, reigned 
one year, viz. from his first anointing by Samuel at Ramah, to his second 
anointing by him at Gilgal after the defeat of Nahash. 

The historian proceeds to tell us that he reigned over Israel two years, 
that is he reigned two years over the whole of Israel now that he w T as publicly 
recognised and accepted by all the people at Gilgal, for before, at the public 
recognition at Mizpeh, there were some who dissented from the appointment 
and despised him (1 Sam. io 17 " 27 ). 

The implication is that at the end of this two years the Lord cast him off, 
and anointed David in place of him. The remaining 37 years of his reign 
is not recognised as legitimate ruling, but is regarded rather as a tyranny, 
and a persecution. During the two years of his recognised rule over Israel 
he defeated Moab, Ammon, Edom, the Kings of Zobah, the Philistines 
and the Amalekites, and thus delivered Israel out of the hands of those that 
spoiled them (1 Sam. 14 47-48 ). Then he invaded and conquered Amalek, 
but here he disobeyed the word of the Lord in sparing Agag, and the Lord 
cast him off, three years after his first anointing at Mizpeh, and two years after 
the commencement of his reign over all Israel at his second anointing at 
Gilgal. 

The translation of the verse in the Revised Version is utterly unwarranted, 
and the marginal note is distinctly misleading. The R.V. rendering is " Saul 
was (thirty) years old when he began to reign, and he reigned two years over 
Israel." The marginal note reads as follows: "The Hebrew Text has ' Saul 
was a year old. The whole verse is omitted in the unrevised LXX. but in 
a later recension the number 30 is inserted.' " 

Now the truth is the Hebrew Text does not say " Saul was a year old." 
To say that it does is to charge it with perpetrating a folly of which it is 

164 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 165 



incapable. And the charge is a false one. What the Hebrew Text says is not 
" Saul was a year old," but "Saul was a year old in his reigning " or "in his 
Kingdom," literally " a son of one year in his reigning," accurately " Saul 
had been reigning one year." The description of the LXX. which omits 
the verse altogether as " the unre vised LXX." when it is nothing else but 
the original LXX. itself, and of the LXX. of Origen's Hexapla, in which Origen 
himself has interpolated the word " thirty " as a " later recension," implying 
the superiority of Origen's interpolated text to the original LXX., is an 
inexcusable and a gratuitous misrepresentation of the facts of the case. The 
translators of the LXX. omitted the verse altogether simply because they did 
not understand it. Origen perverted it because he did not understand it. 
The Revisers prefer the perverted text of Origen to the imperfect text of the 
original LXX., which omits the text altogether, and both to the true Text as 
it stands in the Hebrew Verity. If modern interpreters, instead of reading 
modern ideas into the Text of these ancient writers, would place themselves 
at the point of view of the writers, we should be spared some of these 
superfluous " emendations." In truth the Text, as it stands in the Hebrew, 
is both correct and complete. These first three years are carefully distinguished 
and marked off from the remaining 37 years of Saul's reign because they are 
regarded as being years of a different character. The first three years are 
years of the legitimate rule of Saul, the Lord's anointed. The last 37 years 
are years of the unrecognised and illegitimate tyranny of Saul, the usurper 
of David's throne, and the rejected of the Lord. 

Josephus says : " Now Saul, when he had reigned 18 years while Samuel 
was alive, and after his death two (and twenty), ended his life in this manner." 
There may have been some authentic record to which Josephus had access, 
and from which he obtained the information here given, and this is all the more 
probable, because the length of Saul's reign was also known to St. Paul, who 
gives it in his address at iVntioch in Pisidia, as a " space of 40 years " 
(Acts 13 21 ). 

II. David. 

Full details are given of the Chronology of David's reign. He was thirty 
years old when he began to reign, and he reigned 40 years. In Hebron he 
reigned over Judah seven years and six months ; and in Jerusalem he reigned 
thirty and three years over all Israel and Judah (2 Sam. 2 11 , 5 4 ' 5 , 1 Chron. 
29 27 ). _ 

Willis J. Beecher, therefore, adds 41 years to the Chronology for the reign 
of David, assuming that the odd six months would be counted to David as 
an additional year. But there is no ground for this supposition. The state- 
ment in 2 Sam. 2 11 from which that of 2 Sam. 5 5 is derived is quite peculiar. 
The Hebrew specifies 7 years and 6 months as " the number of days that 
David reigned in Hebron." 

The usual chronological statements of the years of the Kings reckon quite 
accurately in whole years, without introducing fractions of a year. For 
these whole years are always calendar years from New Year's Day (Nisan 1st) 



166 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



to New Year's Day. They are not measured from the day of the King's 
accession to the day of his death. They are designed like the years of the 
Patriarchs in Genesis, and the reigns of the Kings in Ptolemy's Canon, and in 
the Assyrian Eponym Canon, to mark the succession of the years in a given 
chronological Era. 

It is not so with a chronological statement which contains fractions of 
a year like this of David's Ji years in Hebron. Here we have a statement 
measuring the exact duration of David's reign in Hebron, as measured from 
the day of his accession to the day of his removal to Jerusalem. When the 
statement is reproduced in terms of calendar years in i Chron. 29 2 1 , the number 
assigned to David's reign is not 41 but 40 years. 

This is confirmed by the 480 years of 1 Kings 6 1 , for if we give David 41 
years, that figure would have to be altered to 481. We could not make David's 
reign 41 years in that list and still retain the number 480 by reducing the 
Joshua- Judges chasm to 12 instead of 13, for if we did that we should reduce 
Jephthah's 300 to 299. These numbers are so locked and inter-locked, so 
checked and doubly checked, that it is next to impossible to " correct " any 
one of them without throwing the whole system into confusion. 

Other dated events are mentioned as taking place in the reign of David. 

(1) In 2 Sam. 15 7 we read, " And it came to pass after 40 years, that Absa- 
lom said unto the King, I pray thee, let me go and pay my vow, which I have 
vowed unto the Lord, in Hebron." It is the story of the commencement 
of Absalom's rebellion. If we knew the point of departure from which the 
40 years are reckoned we should be able to fix the date of the event, but we 
do not. 

Hales suggests an " emendation " of the Text, and would read 4 years 
with the Syriac, Arabic, several MSS. of the Vulgate, Josephus and Theodorus, 
instead of 40, " the present reading being utterly inexplicable." 

The proposal is wholly gratuitous. The 40 years is not reckoned from 
the time of the events detailed in the preceding verses, 1 Sam. 15 1_ 6 , but from 
some previous event, whether, as Dr. John Lightfoot, Ussher and the Companion 
Bible suggest, from the anointing of David, or from some other event, is 
uncertain. 

As the last four chapters of the Book (2 Sam. 21-24) contain five appendices 
on (1) the Gibeonites (2 Sam. 21), (2) David's Song (2 Sam. 22), (3) David's 
last words (2 Sam. 23 1-7 ), (4) David's mighty men (2 Sam. 23 8 ~ 39 ), and (5) 
David's census (2 Sam. 24), incidents which are not arranged in chronological 
order, and which do not form part of the consecutive history of David ; and as 
almost the very next incident of the consecutive history (1 Kings 1) is the 
story of David's last days and death, there is no reason why the 40 years 
may not be reckoned from the 1st year of the reign of David. In that case, 
1 Sam. 15 7 , " It came to pass after 40 years," means it came to pass in the 
40th and last calendar year of David's reign, the 41st as it would be called 
by us if we reckoned from the day of his accession instead of from the following 
New Year's Day, as the writers of the Old Testament reckon. As however one 
cannot be quite sure that this is the epoch from which the 40th year is reckoned, 
the event is not inserted in the Chronological Tables. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 167 



(2) The other dated event belonging to David's reign is the appointment 
of Officers of State, which took place in the fortieth year of his reign (1 Chron. 
26 31 ). 

III. Solomon. 

" The time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was 40 years " 
(1 Kings 11 4 2 , 2 Chron. 9 30 ). 

The dated events of his reign are the following : — " In the fourth year of 
Solomon's reign, in the month Zif, which is the second month, he began to 
build the house of the Lord " (1 Kings 6 1, 37 ), "in the 2nd day of the 2nd 
month of the 4th year of his reign" (2 Chron. 3 2 ) . In the nth year in the month 
Bui, which is the 8th month, the House was finished throughout, so he was 
7 years (more exactly 7 years and six months) in building it (1 Kings 6 38 ). 

In the nth year he commenced to build his own house, and with this he 
was occupied for 13 years until the 20th year of his reign (1 Kings 7 1 , 9 10 , 
2 Chron. 8 1 ). 

Accuracy of the Round Numbers used in the Old Testament. 

The remarkable fact that each of the first three Kings of Israel, Saul, 
David and Solomon, are said to have reigned 40 years, has been used to cast 
a doubt upon the accuracy of the record, these figures being used, it is said, as 
round numbers, and signifying nothing more than a rough approximation 
to the lifetime of one generation. 

The same argument has been applied to other periods of 20, 40 and 80 years 
in respect of the 40 years in the wilderness, and the periods of rest in the 
Book of Judges. The argument could not be applied to the Kings of Israel 
and Judah from Rehoboam and Jeroboam onward without modification, as 
there, only one out of the 19 Kings of Judah, and only one out of the 19 Kings 
of Israel, is credited with either 20 or 40 years. 

Nevertheless, it has been urged that multiples of five occur with great 
frequency in the ages of the Kings of Judah, and the years of their reign, and 
that the natural inference is that the figures given are round numbers or 
approximations (D. R. Fotheringham, Chronology of the Old Testament). But 
the total number of the ages and reigns of the Kings of Judah is 36. Of these 
we should expect, on the theory of averages, that at least 7 would end in a 
5 or a 0. As a matter of fact, seven end in a 5 and two in a 0, from which the 
true conclusion is that the figures given are not approximations, but exact 
statements of matters of fact. 

The same can be said with regard to the periods of 20, 40 and 80 years. 
The entire list is as follows : — 



168 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



Periods of 20, 40 and 80 years mentioned in Scripture. 



The Wilderness Period 
Othniel 
Ehud . . 
Jabin . . 
Barak . . 
Gideon 

The Philistines 
Eli 

Samuel 
Saul 

David . . 
Solomon 



40 years 

40 „ 

80 „ 
20 

40 „ 

40 „ 

40 » 

4° » 
20 

40 „ 

40 » 

40 „ 



The wilderness period is not an approximation, for it is calculated to the 
day, and full particulars are given of 17 distinct events with the year, the 
month, and the day of the month on which they happened, especially at the 
beginning and at the end of the period. 

It is not true of David's reign, for this is divided into two parts of 7 J and 
33 years respectively. We have no warrant for concluding that the remaining 
periods of 20, 40 and 80 years may not be made up in the same way either to 
the day, as in the case of the wilderness period, or within six months, the 
fraction of a year being allowed for in the Chronology as in the case of the 
reign of David. 

The number of the Kings of England from William the Conqueror to 
Queen Victoria is 35. On the theory of averages we should expect the number 
of years in the reigns of 7 of these to end in a 5 or a 0. As a matter of fact, 
12 or nearly double that number end in one or other of these figures, yet no one 
supposes that the length of the reigns of the Kings of England is an approxi- 
mation. 

The Book of Judges is a very condensed account of a long period of time. 
Its space is apportioned at the rate of 5 pages to the Century. A writer on 
English Architecture would not be guilty of chronological inaccuracy if he 
dealt in a similarly brief space with the various styles of Gothic Architecture, 
tabulating them as follows : nth Century, Norman ; 12th Century, Transition ; 
13th Century, Early English ; 14th Century, Decorated ; and 15th Century, 
Perpendicular. As a matter of fact, each of these styles dates from at least a 
decade or so before the opening year of the Century to which it mainly belongs. 
But the Chronology of the entire period is not affected thereby. And it must 
not be supposed that the round numbers used in Scripture are introduced in 
such a way as to make the Chronology, as a whole, inaccurate or inexact. The 
reckoning by forties is just as accurate as the reckoning by Centuries. If 
these numbers are approximations they are self-compensating and self- 
correcting, and conduct us to a point quite definite and quite exact, for their 
totals agree with the long numbers measuring long periods by which smaller 
component numbers are checked. All the above periods of 40 years are 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 169 



checked either by St. Paul's 450 years, in Acts 13 20 , or by the 480 years of 
1 Kings 6 1 , and some of them by both of these long numbers. 

We are therefore justified in rejecting the theory of round numbers or 
approximations, and taking the numerical statements of Scripture at their 
face value. We continue our Chronology from the election of Saul to the 
accession of Rehoboam and Jeroboam as follows : — 

AN. HOM. 

3023. Saul (see Chapter 17). 

40. Add 40 years for the reign of Saul (Acts 13 21 ). 
3063. David. 

40. Add 40 years for the reign of David (2 Sam. 5 4 - 5 , 1 Chron. 29 2 7 ). 
3103. Solomon. 

40. Add 40 years for the reign of Solomon (1 Kings 11 4 2 , 2 Chron. 9 30 ). 
3143. Rehoboam and Jeroboam. 



Chapter XXI. Israel and Judah to the Fall of Samaria. 

The Gordian Knot of Bible Chronology. 

(an. hom. 3143-3413). 

[In reading this Chapter continual reference must be made to the Chronological 
Tables, which are printed separately in Vol. II so that they may lie 
upon the table at the required opening, ready for use.] 

We now reach the crux of the Chronology of the Old Testament, the period 
of the Kings of Judah and Israel, " the Gordian knot of Sacred Chronology," 
as Hales terms it. As was to be expected, we here meet with an unusually 
large number of attempts to cut the Gordian knot by means of so-called 
emendations, corrections and rejections of the Text by lame Chronologers, 
who, one and all, conclude that if they cannot make the figures agree, it is 
not their own interpretation of the figures, but the Text which is at fault. 

And yet there is not a single difficulty that has been raised which is not 
capable of a simple and easy solution without doing violence to the Text ; 
there is not a single difficulty that has not been satisfactorily cleared up in 
standard works by able Chronologers from the Chronicle of the Old Testament 
by Dr. John Lightfoot, in the 17th Century, to Willis J. Beecher's Dated 
Events of the Old Testament, and the scholarly work of the author of the 
Companion Bible, in our own day. 

" In casting up the times of the collateral Kingdoms," says Dr. Lightfoot, 
" your only way is to lay them in two columns, one justly paralleling the 
other, and run them both by years, as the Text directs you. But here is 
nicety indeed, not to see how strangely they are reckoned, sometimes inclusive, 
sometimes otherwise — for this you will easily find ; but to find a reason why 
they be so reckoned. Rehoboam's years are counted complete ; Abijam's 
are current. Whereas it is said that Jeroboam reigned 22 years — and his 
son Nadab 2 years ; you will find by this reckoning that Nadab's 2 years 
fall within the sum of his father's 22. This may seem strange, but the solution 



170 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



is sweet and easy from 2 Chron. 13 2 °. The Lord smote Jeroboam with some 
ill disease, that he could not administer or rule the kingdom, so that he was 
forced to substitute Nadab in his lifetime. And in one and the same year, 
both father and son die." 

" Divers such passages as these you will find in this story of the Kings. 
Ahaziah 2 years older than his father (2 Chron. 22 2 ), Baasha righting 9 years 
after he is dead (2 Chron. 16 1 ), Jotham reigning 4 years after he is buried 
(2 Kings 15 3 °), Joram crowned King in the 17th year of Jehoshaphat 
(2 Kings i 17 with 1 Kings 22 5 *), and in the 22nd year of Jehoshaphat 
(2 Kings 8 16 ), and after Jehoshaphat's death (2 Chron. 21 1 )." 

" For resolution of such ambiguities, when you have found them, the 
Text will do it, if it be well searched. This way, attained to, will guide you 
in marking those things that seem to be contradictions in the Text, or slips 
of the Holy Ghost, in which always is admirable wisdom." 

" Admirable it is to see how the Holy Spirit of God in discords hath 
showed the sweet music. But few mark this, because few take a right course 
in reading of Scripture. Hence, when men are brought to see flat contra- 
dictions, as unreconciled there be many in it, they are at amaze and ready to 
deny their Bible. A little pains right spent, will soon amend this wavering 
and settle men upon the Rock, whereon to be built is to be sure." 

The key to the solution of all these difficulties is given by Willis J. Beecher, 
in an article on " The Kings of Israel and Judah," in the American Presbyterian 
Review for April, 1880. 

" In recording dates," he says, " these narratives follow a simple and 
consistent system. The following rules are obeyed with entire uniformity, 
in all the dates of the period under consideration : — 

" Rule 1. All the years mentioned are current years of a consecutive system. 

The first year of a King is not a year's time beginning with 
the month and day of his accession, but a year's time beginning 
(1) the preceding, or (2) the following New Year's Day — the 
New Moon before the Passover, Nisan 1st. 

" Rule 2. When a reign closes and another begins during a year, that year 
is counted to the previous reign (Judaite mode). 

" Rule 3. Regularly in the case of the earlier Kings of Israel, and occa- 
sionally in other cases, the broken year is counted to the 
following reign as well as to the previous reign (Israelite mode). 

" Rule 4. When we use the ordinal numbers (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) which 
date the beginning or the end of a reign to check the cardinal 
numbers (1, 2, 3, etc.), which denote its duration, we must count 
both sets as designating complete calendar years. That is, 
we must count the date given in the ordinal as being either 
the opening or the close of the year designated by the 
ordinal. Otherwise the units represented by the two sets 
of numbers are of different sorts, and cannot be numerically 
compared." 

The Hebrew Text of the history of this period is self-consistent and self- 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 171 



contained. All the data required for the resolution of any difficulties that 
may arise are to be found in the Text itself. 

There is no need to fall back upon Josephus. Still less is there any need 
to introduce any of the harmonizing expedients of the LXX. or any of the 
" emendations," " restorations " and " corrections " of the Text by modern 
critics, who present us with a view of the history as they think it ought to be, 
not with a view of the history as it is. 

Similarly the use of " Sothic Cycles," the calculation of eclipses and other 
astronomical methods and expedients for settling Bible Dates, are all alike 
inadmissible. They are liable to errors of observation on the part of the 
original observer, to errors of calculation on the part of the modern astronomer, 
and consequently to errors in the identification of the observed and recorded 
eclipse with the eclipse reached by astronomical calculation. 

They are used mainly in support of assumptions and pre-suppositions 
already arrived at by the method of hypothesis and conjecture. They may be 
true or they may not, but in any case they cannot be erected into a standard by 
which to correct the data given in the Hebrew Text. 

Modern Egyptologists make much of astronomical data. Each advocate 
regards his own scheme as thereby invested with the certainty of a mathe- 
matical calculation. But there are many such schemes, and they differ from 
each other by more than a century. As Willis J. Beecher says, " Each chain 
has links of the solid steel of astronomical computation, but they are tied 
together with the rotten twine of conjecture." 

A few years ago the scheme of Lepsius was generally accepted by those 
modern Egyptologists by whom the Biblical data were discarded. A Sothic 
Cycle known as that of Menophres, terminated a.d. 139, and as the cycle 
contains 1,461 years it began B.C. 1322. By this calculation they date the 
Exodus in the year B.C. 1320. The inference depends for its validity upon the 
truth of the following hypotheses, every one of which partakes of the character 
of an unverified conjecture : — 

1. The trustworthiness of the testimony of Censorinus, the chronological 

scheme constructor, who lived a.d. 238, and who states in his work 
De die Natali that a Sothic period came to an end a.d. 139. The 
testimony may be authentic and reliable, but as it is not contem- 
porary, but given just a century after the event, it is at all events 
liable to error. 

2. The accuracy of the calculation of Censorinus, and the truth of the 

underlying assumption that the period of 1,460 Sothic years of 
365J days does actually correspond with the period covered by 
1,461 of the vague or calendar years of 365 days, and that these 
vague years were used in the historical records of Egypt through- 
out the entire period of 1,460 Sothic or 1,461 vague calendar 
years. 

3. The accuracy of the calculation of modern astronomers as to the heliacal 

rising of Sirius, the rising of the dogstar with the sun in the year 
B.C. 1322. 



172 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



4. The accuracy of the identification of this cycle (b.c. 1322 to a.d. 139) 

with the Sothic cycle of Menophres. 

5. The accuracy of the identification of this Menophres with Merenptah the 

son of Rameses the Great. 

6. The accuracy of the identification of Merenptah with the Ameno- 

phis IV, to whose reign Manetho, as reported by Josephus, assigns 
the Exodus. 

7. The trustworthiness of the testimony of Manetho, as preserved in 

Josephus, in referring the Exodus to the reign of this Amenophis IV, 
and the accuracy of the identification of Manetho's story of the 
expulsion of the lepers with the Biblical story of the deliverance of 
Israel out of Egypt, by Moses, at the Exodus. 

Lepsius held that the year B.C. 1322 was connected with the reign of 
Merenptah, the immediate successor of Rameses the Great. It was based on 
astronomical calculations of the Sothic cycle, and was generally accepted 
by modern scholars a few years ago. 

But to-day the theory of Lepsius is abandoned for another theory also 
based on astronomical calculations of the Sothic cycle, and elaborated by 
Mahler, Edouard Meyer, Prof. Breasted, and others. Its advocates claim 
that their methods are exact, but their results are various and incompatible. 
The year in which Merenptah succeeded Rameses II is given by Flinders 
Petrie as B.C. 1207, by Sayce as B.C. 1280, and by Breasted as B.C. 1255. 

But the most striking feature in the whole process and method of these 
scientific calculations is the fact that the synchronism of Amenophis III of 
Egypt with Burna-buriash of Babylon and Asshur-uballet of Assyria, who 
are said to have flourished about B.C. 1430, which was formerly used in confir- 
mation of the Lepsian dates, is now used in confirmation of these other dates, 
which differ from that of Lepsius by 42, 97, and 115 years respectively, " each 
method abundantly convincing to those already convinced before ! " 

These quasi-infallible dates arrived at by modern investigators are erected 
into a standard by which to amend and to correct the dates of the Hebrew 
Text of the Old Testament. But this is correcting standard coin of the realm 
by means of counterfeit fabrications. 

The authentic documents of the Hebrew Old Testament are both accurate 
and self-consistent, complete and self-sufficient. The facts and the events, 
the dates and the periods there given, are as accurate and as reliable as those 
other statements upon which we base our confidence in the goodness of God, 
and rest in hope of eternal Salvation. 

We read in Hales' Analysis of Sacred Chronology, the following proud and 
startling paragraph. 

" We are now competent to detect some errors that have crept into the 
correspondences of reigns ; and which have hitherto puzzled and perplexed 
Chronologers, and prevented them from critically harmonizing the two series ; 
not being able to distinguish the genuine from the spurious numbers. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 173 



"1. 1 Kings, 22 41 . Jehoshaphat began to reign over Judah in the fourth 
year of Ahab. It should be the second. 

2. 1 Kings 22 51 . Ahaziah the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel 

in the seventeenth of Jehoshaphat. It should be the twentieth. 

3. 2 Kings 1 17 . Jehoram the son (?) of Ahaziah began to reign over Israel 

in the second year of Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat. It should be in 
the twenty-second year of Jehoshaphat, as also where it is again incor- 
rectly stated in the eighteenth (2 Kings 3 2 ) . 

4. 2 Kings 8 16 . Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat began to reign over Judah, 

in the fifth year of the reign of Joram the (grand) son of Ahab. It 
should be, 

(1) the fifth year from the death of Ahab, or 

(2) the third year of Joram's reign. 

' Jehoshaphat being then King of Judah ' is an anachronism and an 
interpolation in the Massoretic Text. 

5. 2 Kings 13 10 . Jehoash began to reign over Israel in the thirty-seventh 

year of Joash King of Judah. It should be in the thirty-ninth year ; 
as in the Aldine Edition of the Greek Septuagint. 

6. 2 Kings 15 30 . Hoshea slew Pekah King of Israel in the twentieth 

year of Jotham. But Jotham only reigned sixteen years (2 Kings 
15 3 3 ) . It should be in the third year of Ahaz, as collected from 
2 Kings 16 V 

Clinton follows in the same groove, though not quite in the same vein. 
Chronologers generally follow each other like a flock of sheep, each one repro- 
ducing and propagating the errors of his predecessor. He says : — 

"1. 2 Chron. 16 1_3 . Baasha came up against Judah in the 36th year of the 
reign of Asa. As in the 36th year of Asa, Baasha was dead, we must 
either (1) correct the numbers to the 26th, or (2) we must understand 
them to mean the 36th year of the Kingdom of Judah. 

2. 2 Chron. 22 2 . Forty- two years for the age of Ahaziah are wrong, on 

account of 2 Kings 8 26 , where it is given " 22 years," and on account 
of the age of his father who died at forty. 

3. 1 Kings 22 51 . The 17th year of Jehoshaphat is inconsistent with 

the other coincidences given. (So he alters it to the 19th, as Hales 
does.) 

4. 2 Kings 3 1 . The 18th of Jehoshaphat was the 1st of Joram. This is 

evidently impossible ; for between the accession of Jehoshaphat 
and the accession of Joram son of Ahab are 18 years complete of 
Ahab and two years of Ahaziah. 

5. 2 Kings 1 17 . Joram son of Ahab is said to have succeeded his brother 

in the 2nd of Jehoram King of Judah, but as the 1st of Jehoram 
King of Judah was the 5th of Joram King of Israel, and the 8th of 
the King of Judah was the nth or 12th of the King of Israel, this 
date, the ' 2nd of Jehoram,' is evidently wrong. 



174 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



"6. 2 Kings 8 16 . The phrase, ' Jehoshaphat being then King of Judah,' 
we may perhaps explain thus : Jehoram began to reign while his 
father was yet living (as in the accession of Solomon) , and Jehoshaphat 
died at the commencement of the 25th year, which is therefore the 
1st Jehoram. 

7. 2 Kings 13 1 °. The 37th year of Joash is inconsistent with the other dates. 

The LXX. has the 39th year, which might be the true reading. 

8. 2 Kings 15 \ We may concur with Jackson, De Vignoles and Greswell 

in rejecting the 27th year of Jeroboam as corrupt." 

All these difficulties are due to (1) misinterpretation of the words of the 
Text, or (2) unwarrantable inferences drawn by the Chronologer, not from 
the words of the Text, but from assumptions made by the Chronologer in 
construing it. 

Thus 2 Chron. 16 1_3 . Baasha came up against Judah in the 36th year 
of the reign of Asa. The text says the 36th year of the /TD^Q = 
malchuth = Kingdom of Asa, which Kingdom dates from the 1st year of Reho- 
boam, and which is here contrasted with the Kingdom of Baasha, which dates 
from the 1st year of Jeroboam. To make it mean the 36th year from the 
accession of Asa is an error of interpretation. 

Again, 2 Kings 13 9 - 10 . Jehoash of Israel began to reign in the 37th year 
of Joash, King of Judah. It is said that this should be the 39th. Here it is 
assumed that Jehoash of Israel did not begin to reign until after his father 
Jehoahazwas dead, and as his father did not die till two years later in the 39th 
of Joash of Judah, the inference drawn from the Chronologer s assumption is 
that Jehoash of Israel did not begin to reign till the 39th year of Joash of 
Judah. But the Text says he began to reign in the 37th year of Joash of 
Judah, and the true inference drawn from the Text is that Jehoash was Co-Rex 
with his father, during the last two or three years of his father's reign. 

In like manner it can be shown that every other supposed inconsistency is 
not in the Text, but in the mind of the critic ; that the Text is susceptible of 
another interpretation, and that the construction put upon it by the critic 
is a false one. This is done in the ensuing Chronological Table of the Kings of 
Judah and Israel, where each difficulty is explained in accordance with the 
statements of the Text. 

The Table is divided into three periods : — 

1. From the 1st of Rehoboam to the death of Ahaziah of Judah, which 

synchronises with the period from the 1st of Jeroboam to the death of 
Jehoram of Israel, both these monarchs having been slain at the 
same time by Jehu. 

2. From the 1st of Athaliah to the 6th of Hezekiah, which synchronises 

with the 1st of Jehu to the 9th of Hoshea, the Text giving the 
synchronism, " the sixth year of Hezekiah, that is the ninth year of 
Hoshea," as the dateof the fall of Samaria (2 Kings 18 10 ). 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 175 



3. From the fall of Samaria in the 6th of Hezekiah to the captivity. The 
captivity is dated from the 3rd year of Jehoiakim. The following 
year is characterised by the synchronism, " the fourth year of Jehoia- 
kim that was the first year of Nebuchadrezzar " (Jer. 25 The 
captivity lasted for 70 years (Jer. 25 12 ). 

In the first of these three periods, Rehoboam and Jeroboam start level, 
and their years are parallel or co-numerary as far as they both continue. 
Similarly, in the second of these three periods, Athaliah and Jehu start level, 
and their years are parallel or co-numerary as far as they both continue. In 
the third period, which forms the subject of our next chapter, we have the 
reckoning of the one Kingdom of Judah only. 

The reigns of the Kings of the first two periods are so locked and interlocked, 
that it is impossible for any error to have crept into the Chronology between 
the year of the disruption and the year of the fall of Samaria. 

The accuracy of the Chronology of the Kingdom of Judah from the fall of 
Samaria to the captivity is likewise guaranteed, being checked by the long 
numbers which measure the intervals between two distant events, e.g. the 
period from the 13th year of Josiah, when the ministry of Jeremiah began, 
to the 4th year of Jehoiakim, is stated to have been a period of 23 years 
(Jer. 25 1 ~ s ). 

The synchronism contained in Jer. 25 1 is the most important date in the 
Bible. It connects all the previous dates of Sacred Chronology down to the 
4th year of Jehoiakim, with all the dates of Profane Chronology that can be 
connected with the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar, for these two years are here 
identified, and to know any one date in a complete system of Chronology is 
to know every date connected with it. 

We have inserted in Vol. II, pp. 50 and 51, two Tables giving a bird's-eye 
view of the Kings of Judah and Israel, the years of their reigns, and other 
particulars contained in the Hebrew Text. 

Scripture Chronology deals only with integral years. It reckons a broken 
year sometimes as one whole year, which it gives to the outgoing King, and 
•sometimes as two whole years, of which it gives one to the outgoing, and one 
to the incoming King, the year being thus reckoned twice over. It follows 
from this fact that the Chronology of the period cannot be ascertained by 
applying the process of simple addition to the figures denoting the length 
•of the reigns of the various Kings. This is easily demonstrated. 

In the first period the sum of the reigns of the 6 Kings of Judah from 
Rehoboam to Ahaziah of Judah is 95 years. The sum of the reigns of the 
9 Kings of Israel from Jeroboam to Jehoram of Israel is 98 years. The true 
Chronology of the period is 90 years. The explanation of the figures 95 and 
98 lies in the fact that in them some years have been reckoned twice over. 

In the second period the sum of the reigns of the 6 Kings and 1 Queen 
of Judah from the 1st of Athaliah to the 6th of Hezekiah, together with the 
interregnum of n years, is 176 years. The sum of the reigns of the 10 Kings 
of Israel from the 1st year of Jehu to the 9th year of Hoshea, including the 
interregnums of 22 and 8 years respectively, is 175, reckoning a full year 



176 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



each to Zechariah and Shallum. The true Chronology of the period is 174 years, 
and the explanation of the figures 176 and 175 years is the same as before. 

In the third period the sum of the reigns of the 6 Kings of Judah from 
the 6th year of Hezekiah to the 3rd year of Jehoiakim is 114. The true 
Chronology of the period is also 114 years. 

We now proceed to consider the case of each reign in detail. The figures 
cannot be treated mechanically. They can only be interpreted and under- 
stood in the light of the accompanying narrative. 

The fact that Ahab and his two successors, Ahaziah of Israel and Jehoram 
of Israel, all reigned in the same calendar year, is illustrated by the knowledge 
gained from the Assyrian Inscriptions that Ahab of Israel and Benhadad of Syria, 
were engaged in military operations against Shalmaneser II (III) of Assyria, 
in the 21st year of Ahab's reign, which led to the appointment of Ahaziah 
of Israel as Co-Rex during his father's absence at the war. But Ahaziah 
was incapacitated by his fall through a lattice in his upper chamber (2 Kings 
i 2 ). Hence the appointment of his brother Jehoram, either as Deputy or 
Pro-Rex, whilst Ahaziah was ill, or as Co-Rex with his father Ahab on Ahaziah's 
death. In that 18th year of Jehoshaphat, Ahab was in his 22nd year and died. 
Ahaziah of Israel was in his 2nd year as Co-Rex with his father Ahab, and he 
died. Thereupon Jehoram of Israel ascended the throne, and, in the usual 
Israelite mode of computation, the same year, the 18th of Jehospaphat, is 
also given to him as the incoming King, and reckoned as his first year. 

The last year of Edward IV was the year 1483. If his son Edward V 
had been associated with him in 1482 and had died, and been succeeded by 
Richard II in 1483 instead of 1485, we should have had a parallel case in 
English History. Edward IV, Edward V and Richard II all on the throne 
in the same calendar year. 

Similarly, the character of Jehoram of Judah, one of the most wicked 
Kings that ever sat upon the throne of Judah (2 Chron. 21), explains why he 
should have been made Pro-Rex with his father in the 17th of Jehoshaphat 
(the 18th year of Jehoshaphat = the 1st year of Jehoram of Israel being his 
second year — 2 Kings 1 1 1 , 3 x ) , then deposed by his godly father Jehoshaphat 
and subsequently re-appointed, or possibly, prompted by his own wickedness to 
usurp (2 Chron. 21 4 ) the throne of his father, in the 22nd year of Jehoshaphat, 
Jehoshaphat himself being then (in the 22nd of Jehoshaphat = the 5th of 
Jehoram of Israel) King of Judah (2 Kings S 16 ). | 

Ussher is correct here. Clinton is wrong. Ussher does not " suppose " three 
beginnings of the reign of Jehoram of Judah. He incorporates these three 
beginnings in his scheme as a fact definitely stated in the Hebrew narrative. 

Clinton does not think the three beginnings probable, but circumstances 
alter cases, and our business is not to construe the Chronology as we think 
it ought to be, but as the Hebrew writer says it is. 

If we adhere to the facts as given in the Hebrew Text, and never so much 
as attempt to " emend," to " correct," or to " restore " a single one of them, 
we shall find that we are here presented with a Chronology of the Kings of 
Israel and Judah which is at once both self-consistent, self-sufficient and 
correct in every detail. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



177 



1. First Period — Rehoboam to Jehu. 

We begin with the reigns of Rehoboam and Jeroboam. We gather from 
the narrative that these both commenced in the same calendar year. The 
40th year of Solomon is their accession year. The following year is their 
first year. The 17 years of Rehoboam run parallel with the first 17 years of 
Jeroboam. 

Rehoboam was succeeded by Abijah, who began to reign in the 18th year 
of Jeroboam, and reigned 3 years (1 Kings 15 12 ). As Abijah's first year 
is the 18th year of Jeroboam, either his accession year was the 17th of Jeroboam 
= the 17th of Rehoboam, or else Rehoboam reigned out his 17th year to its close, 
and Abijah began his reign at the very beginning of the New Year. In either 
case the three years of Abijah will be the years 18, 19 and 20 of Jeroboam. 

The words " began to reign " used throughout this entire period and 
spoken of almost every King, alike in the A.V. and in the R.V., is not 
an accurate translation of the Original. The Hebrew is always " he reigned," 
not " he began to reign." 

The intention of the writer is to give us, not the actual day of the King's 
accession, but the calendar year of the chronological Era in which he came to 
the throne. As a matter of fact, he may have acceded to the throne in the 
year which, by the Judaite mode, is reckoned as the last year of the outgoing 
King, and by the Israelite mode as both the last year of the outgoing King 
and the year 1 of the incoming King. By the Israelite mode of computation 
the same year is reckoned twice over. 

Abijah's three years are the years 18, 19 and 20 of the reign of Jeroboam. 
From 1 Kings 15 9 - 10 we learn that Asa " reigned " in the 20th year of Jeroboam, 
and that his reign consisted of 41 calendar years. As the 20th year of Jeroboam 
is already given to Abijah, this 20th year of Jeroboam is Asa's accession year, 
and Asa's year 1 is Jeroboam's year 21. Of course Asa did reign in the 20th 
year of Jeroboam, but only during a fraction of it. The Chronology ignores the 
fraction, and on the Judaite mode of reckoning gives the whole year to Abijah. 

Should we make the mistake of entering Asa's year 1 as parallel with 
Jeroboam's year 20, then Asa's year 2 will be Jeroboam's year 21, and Asa's 
year 3 will be Jeroboam's year 22, which is Nadab's year 1. But by 1 Kings 
I5 25 ~ 33 , Nadab reigned in the 2nd year of Asa, 2 years, and Baasha reigned in 
the 3rd year of Asa. We must therefore place Asa's year 1 parallel with 
Jeroboam's year 21, and Asa's accession year parallel with Jeroboam's year 20. 
What the narrative tells us is that during Abijah's year 3, he died and was 
succeeded by Asa, whose year 1 begins at the close of Abijah's year 3. 

Asa 1 == Jeroboam 21. Therefore Asa 2 = Jeroboam 22. Jeroboam 
reigned 22 years and was succeeded by Nadab (1 Kings 14 20 ), who also reigned 
in Asa's year 2 (1 Kings 15 25 ). This year, Asa's year 2, is therefore reckoned 
twice over ; it is given to Jeroboam, the outgoing King, as his year 22, and 
also to Nadab as his year 1. This is the Israelite mode of reckoning. 

Nadab reigned 2 years (1 Kings 15 2 5 ). His year 1 is Asa's year 2. There- 
fore his year 2 is Asa's year 3. But in Asa's year 3, Baasha slew Nadab and 
reigned in his stead (1 Kings 15 28-3 3 ). Therefore Asa's year 3 is both Nadab's 

M 



178 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 

year 2 and Baasha's year 1. Again, the same year is reckoned twice over. 
It is given to Nadab, the outgoing King, as his last year, and to Baasha 
the incoming King, as his first year, according to the Israelite mode of 
reckoning. 

Baasha reigned 24 years (1 Kings 15 3 3 ). His year 1 is Asa's year 3. There- 
fore his year 24 is Asa's year 26. But in Asa's year 26 Elah reigned (1 Kings 
16 8 ). Hence Asa's year 26 is reckoned twice over, once as the last year of 
Baasha and again as the 1st year of Elah, according to the Israelite mode of 
reckoning. 

Elah reigned 2 years (1 Kings 16 8 ). His year 1 is Asa's year 26. Therefore 
his year 2 is Asa's year 27. But in Asa's year 27 Zimri slew Elah and reigned 
7 days (1 Kings 16 10 " 15 ). 

Then the people made Omri King, but half the people followed Tibni, and 
they both reigned as rival Kings from Asa's year 27 till Tibni died 
(1 Kings 16 16 " 22 ). Again the year Asa 27 is reckoned twice over, to Elah 
the outgoing King, and to Omri and Tibni as their year 1, according to the 
Israelite mode of reckoning. On the death of Tibni, in Asa's year 31, Omri 
reigned over Israel alone (1 Kings i6 22-23 ). But Asa's year 27 was Omri 
and Tibni's year 1. Therefore Asa's year 31 was Omri and Tibni's year 5. 

Omri reigned 6 years, that is one year more, in Tirzah. He then bought 
the hill of Samaria and built his new capital there (1 Kings 16 2 3 - * 24 ). Omri 
reigned altogether 12 years (1 Kings 16 23 ). Since Asa's year 27 was Omri's 
year 1, Omri's year 12 was Asa's year 38. But Asa's year 38 is Ahab's year 1 
(1 Kings 16 2 9 ). Hence Asa's year 38 is reckoned twice over to the outgoing 
King Omri as his 12th and last year, and to the incoming King Ahab as his 
first, according to the Israelite mode of reckoning. 

The verse 1 Kings 16 23 like many others, would be much clearer if instead 
of the mistranslation " began to reign," we read simply " reigned," as it is in 
the Hebrew Text. Omri began to reign over part of Israel in Asa's year 27. 
He began to reign over all Israel in Asa's year 31. He reigned altogether 12 
years from Asa's year 27 to Asa's year 38. 

Asa reigned 41 years (1 Kings 15 10 ). Asa's year 38 was Ahab's year 1. 
Therefore Asa's year 41 was Ahab's year 4. But in Ahab's year 4, Jehoshaphat 
reigned in Judah (1 Kings 22 41 ). Asa's year 41 is therefore Jehoshaphat's 
accession year, and Jehoshaphat's year 1 is the next year, Ahab's year 5. The 
whole of the broken year, Ahab's year 4, is given to the outgoing King Asa, 
and none of it to the incoming King Jehoshaphat, according to the Judaite mode 
of reckoning. 

Should we make the error of reckoning Ahab's year 4 as Jehoshaphat's 
year 1, we shall be tripped up when we reach the years of Ahaziah and Jehoram 
of Israel, and the critics who fall into this trap will immediately begin to cry 
out for an " emendation " of the Text to make it square with their error. 

So far all is clear. Each figure given is found to be correct. The Judaite 
method of reckoning is applied to the Kings of Judah, the Israelite method to 
the Kings of Israel. 

But now we reach the most difficult and puzzling problem of the Ahaziahs 
and the Jehorams of Israel and Judah, the Gordian knot of the Chronology 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



179 



of the Kings of Israel and Judah. Many Chronologers have cut the knot. 
But very few have untied it, amongst whom honourable mention must be 
made of Ussher, Willis J. Beecher, and the Author of the Companion Bible. 

The problem is not an easy one, and it can only be solved by giving careful 
attention to the history of the period and the character of the Kings. 

Three Kings of Israel and three Kings of Judah are concerned. A mnemonic 
will serve to fix them in their proper place and to distinguish one from another. 
A. follows A., and J. follows J., and the two successors of Ahab and Jehoshaphat 
are of the same names, but follow in reverse order. Thus we have the follow- 
ing successions : — 

In Israel: (1) Ahab, (2) Ahaziah, (3) Jehoram. 

In Judah: (1) Jehoshaphat (2) Jehoram, (3) Ahaziah. 

Ahab married Jezebel and became a thorough-paced Pagan. Jehoshaphat 
" walked in the ways of Asa his father doing that which was right in the eyes 
of the Lord/' After a while Jehoshaphat joined affinity with Ahab. 

There was first a family alliance (2 Chron. 18 1 ). Jehoshaphat's son, Jehoram 
of Judah, married Ahab's daughter Athaliah. Then there was a commercial 
alliance. Jehoshaphat joined himself with Ahab's son, Ahaziah of Israel, to 
make ships to go to Tarshish (2 Chron. 20 3 6 ). Finally, there was a military 
alliance. Jehoshaphat joined his armed forces with those of Ahab, and went 
up with him against Ramoth-gilead (1 Kings 22 1 " 40 ). 

Jehoram of Judah was one of the worst men that ever sat on the throne of 
David. His wife Athaliah was the daughter of Jezebel, and whatever was 
not bad in her husband when she married him was made bad by her. He 
killed off all his brethren (2 Chron. 21 4 ). She killed off all the descendants 
of her son Ahaziah (except Joash who was saved by Jehoshabeath) . Jehoram 
of Judah walked in the ways of the Kings of Israel like as did the house of 
Ahab. He rose up against ftp-l) the kingdom of his father (2 Chron. 21 4 ), 
not " was risen up to " in the sense of being made a partner of the kingdom, 
as suggested in the A.V. marginal note, but " he rose up against the 
rule of his father and slew all his brethren with the sword, and divers also 
of the princes of Israel." This looks like laying violent hands upon the King- 
dom. Jehoram of Judah caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit 
fornication and compelled Judah thereto (2 Chron. 21 Elijah rebuked him, 
his enemies stripped him of all his substance, the Lord smote him with a 
foul disease, and in the end " he departed without being desired." 

When Ahab and Jehoshaphat went out to war they left the care of their 
Kingdoms to their sons. Hence we find Jehoram of Judah Pro-Rex with 
Jehoshaphat, and Ahaziah of Israel Co-Rex with Ahab, both in the same 
year. Next year Ahab dies in battle at Ramoth-gilead. Ahaziah of Israel 
falls through the lattice and dies, and his brother Jehoram of Israel succeeds 
to the Kingdom. This explains how it is that there were three Kings of 
Israel in one and the same calendar year. 

Meanwhile Jehoshaphat returns to Jerusalem. He resumes the control 
of affairs, and the Pro-Rexship of Jehoram of Judah comes to an end, and with 
it the reckoning of Jehoram of Judah's years in 2 Kings 1 1 7 , which makes 



180 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



Jehoram of Israel's year i = Jehoshaphat's year 18, which again = Jehoram of 
Judah's year 2. 

Then comes Jehoshaphat/s death and the sole Kingship of Jehoram of 
Judah. He began his second count as Co-Rex in Jehoram of Israel's 5th 
year (2 Kings 8 16 - 17 ) — Jehoshaphat's year 22. This, then, was Jehoram of 
Judah's year 1 as Co-Rex, Jehoshaphat being then King of Judah, if Hales and 
Clinton, who would delete these words as an interpolation, only knew it. 

Jehoshaphat died in Jehoram of Judah's year 4 as Co-Rex, whereupon 
Jehoram of Judah begins to reign for the third time, now as sole King, but he 
continues the count of the years of his Co-Rexship and calls the next year his 
5th year. He reckons himself King from the time of the first year of his Co- 
Rexship, and consequently he calls the year after the year of Jehoshaphat's 
death his year 5. 

This explains the apparent incongruity of his beginning to reign three times 
over, 1st as Pro-Rex, when his father went to war, 2nd as Co-Rex, during his 
father's lifetime, when Jehoshaphat gave gifts and cities to all his sons, but 
gave to Jehoram of Judah the Kingdom because he was the firstborn (2 Chron. 
21 3 ), and 3rd as sole King when his father died. 

Ahaziah of Israel is said to have reigned 2 years, but both he and his father 
died in the same year, and both these years belong to each of them, whilst the 
second of them belongs also to Jehoram of Israel. All this is correctly stated 
in the Text (1 Kings 22 5 1 , 2 Kings i 17 , 3 1 ), according to the Israelite mode 
of reckoning. 

Since Jehoram of Israel's year 1= Jehoram of Judah's year 2 (2 Kings 1 11 , 
3 1 ) =Ahab's year 22 = Ahaziah of Israel's year 2 = Jehoshaphat's year iS, 
it follows that Jehoram of Judah's year 1 as Pro-Rex = Jehoshaphat's year 17. 

Since Jehoram of Judah's year 1 = Jehoram of Israel's year 5 = Jehoshaphat's 
year 22 (2 Kings 8 1617 ), it follows that he must have been removed from 
the Pro-Rexship (the count of his years as Pro-Rex having ceased), and begun 
to reckon again as Co-Rex, making Jehoshaphat's year 22 the year 1 of his 
Co-Rexship, the years of which are continued throughout the rest of his life, so 
that when he becomes sole King on the death of Jehoshaphat his years are 
counted on just as if he were already King. In all this there is no departure 
from the ordinary Judaite mode of reckoning. The facts are all perfectly 
clear and are all clearly stated. They can only be understood by keeping 
the eye on the Chronological Table which exhibits them. (See Vol. II, p. 24.) 

When Jehoram of Judah was smitten with the foul disease he was obliged 
to associate his son Ahaziah of Judah with himself as Co-Rex. Hence Ahaziah 
of Judah reigned in Jehoram of Israel's year 11, viz. as Co-Rex (2 Kings 9 2 9 ). 

But since Jehoram of Israel's year 5 is Jehoram of Judah's year 1, it follow s 
that Jehoram of Israel's year 11 is Jehoram of Judah's year 7. Hence Jehoram 
of Judah's year 7 is Ahaziah of Judah's year 1 as Co-Rex. The next year is 
Jehoram of Israel's year 12= Jehoram of Judah's year 8 = the year in which 
Jehoram of Judah died (2 Kings 8 17 ), consequently in which Ahaziah of Judah 
became sole King (2 Kings 8 25 ) and reigned one year (2 Kings 8 26 ). This 
one year is Jehoram of Israel's year 12, and Ahaziah of Judah's year 1 as 
sole King. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 181 



But now for the first time in the records of the Kings of Judah we get one 
and the same year counted twice over, and given to the outgoing King, Jehoram 
of Judah, and also to the incoming King, Ahaziah of Judah. This just shows 
what thorough-paced heathens these two Kings of Judah had become, the 
one the husband, and the other the son, of Athaliah, the daughter of Jezebel. 
We cannot affect to be surprised that under the domination of paganizing 
Israelitish influences, the Judaite method of reckoning is displaced by the 
Israelite mode of reckoning. 

Ahaziah of Judah is the King whose age, as given in 2 Chron. 22 2 , shows 
him to have been " two years older than his father." Yet, as Dr. John Light- 
foot says, there is always " admirable wisdom " in these " slips of the Holy 
Ghost." " Strange variations yet always Divine," " discords in which the 
Holy Ghost hath showed sweet music." 

Compare the two passages : — 

2 Kings 8 26 : " Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began 
to reign." 

2 Chron. 22 2 : " Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to 
reign." 

A plain contradiction, if ever there was one, either in the Bible or out of it, 
yet one put there intentionally and on purpose to convey a Divine Truth. 

The two golden rules for the solution of Bible difficulties like this are, (1) look 
to the original Hebrew, and (2) read carefully the context. We translate — 

2 Chron. 22 2 : A son of 42 years was Ahaziah when he began to reign. 

If, therefore, we look back 42 years, we shall come to his father. Now from 
an. hom. 3231, the first year of Ahaziah, deduct 42 years, and we reach the year 
AN. hom. 3189. Referring to the Chronological Tables we find that the year 
an. hom. 3189 was the first year of Omri, the founder of anew dynasty — so that 
just as the sacred writer reckons the years of the Kingdom of Asa from the 
true origin of the Kingdom in the first year of Rehoboam (2 Chron. 16 1 , 
see Chronological Tables an. hom. 3178 — 16th year of Asa), so here he 
reckons the years of Ahaziah from the accession of the dynasty of Omri. 
Now look to the context. Complete the translation of the verse : — 

2 Chron. 22 2 : A son of 42 years was Ahaziah when he began to reign, 
and he reigned one year in Jerusalem, and his mother's name was 
Athaliah, the daughter of Omri. He also walked in the ways of the 
house of Ahab. He did evil, like the house of Ahab. He went 
down to see Joram the son of Ahab. And the destruction of Ahaziah 
was of God by coming to Joram. For he went out with Joram against 
Jehu, whom the Lord had anointed to cut off the house of Ahab. 
And when Jehu was executing judgment upon the house of Ahab, 
and found the princes of Judah and the sons of the brethren of Aha- 
ziah, he slew them. And he sought Ahaziah, and they caught him 
(for he was hid in Samaria) , and when they had slain him they buried 
him, for they said he is the son of Jehoshaphat who sought the Lord 
with all his heart. 



182 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



But the Holy Ghost will not have him for a son of David's line at all. He 
is the son of Athaliah, the daughter of Omri and Jezebel. He is no seed of 
David. He is an imp of the house of Ahab, a son of the house of Omri, and 
as such a " son of 42 years," for the dynasty of the house of Omri was exactly 
42 years old. 

That is not the " modern " way of writing history, but it is the way of the 
Old Testament writers, and the way of the New Testament writers too, and if 
we want to understand their writings we must put ourselves at their point of 
view, and not force our meaning into their words. 

This interpretation is confirmed by St. Matthew, who will have it that 
Rehoboam begat Abijah, and Abijah begat Asa, and Asa begat Jehoshaphat, 
and Jehoshaphat begat Jehoram, but Jehoram did not beget Ahaziah — nor 
Joash — nor Amaziah — but only the fourth in the direct line of descent, 
" Jehoram begat Uzziah," his great-great-grandson. " Let the posterity of 
the wicked be cut off, and in the generation following let their name be blotted 
out. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the Lord ; and let not 
the sin of his mother be blotted out. Let them be before the Lord 
continually, that He may cut off the memory of them from the earth" 
(Psa. 109 13 ~ 15 ). " For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the 
iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation 
of them that hate Me" (Ex. 20 5 ). St. Matthew will have it that from 
David to the carrying away to Babylon are 14 generations, not 17, and that 
these three men are no true seed of the royal line of David. Their ancestry 
must be traced to the house of Omri. 

The modern critic wants facts, and will have it that the Bible must be 
interpreted like any other book. But the Bible is not written from the same 
standpoint as any other book, and whilst it gives all the facts that the critics 
need, it also gives something more. It gives the Divine interpretation and 
the real meaning of the facts. 

2. Second Period — Jehu to the Fall of Samaria. 

We have reached the end of another chapter in the history of the Kings 
of Israel and Judah. Jehu slays both Ahaziah of Judah and Jehoram of 
Israel, and seizes the throne of Israel. 

Athaliah destroys the seed royal, and usurps the throne of Judah. Athaliah 
and Jehu start level as Rehoboam and Jeroboam did. Jehu's year 1 is 
Athaliah's year 1, and with this year a new Era is introduced. " Jehu slew 
(the seventy sons and) all that remained of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, and all 
his great men, and his kinsfolks, and his priests, until he left him none remaining 
(2 Kings 10 He gathered together "all the prophets of Baal, all his ser- 
vants, and all his priests," and slew them. Thus Jehu destroyed Baal out of 
Israel (2 Kings io 19 - 25 28 ). 

In the Kingdom of Judah, Jehoiada engineers a great political revolution, 
inspires a great religious revival, and sets Joash on the throne of Judah. 
Athaliah is slain in the 7th year of her usurpation. The house of Baal is 
broken down, and Mattan, the priest of Baal, is slain (2 Kings n 4_21 ). 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



183 



In these circumstances, it is natural to expect that the reigns of the 
succeeding Kings of both Kingdoms are computed by the Judaite mode 
of reckoning, and, as a matter of fact, this is just what we find. 

The new Era begins with Jehu's year 1, which is also Athaliah's year 1. 
From this point onward, the Israelite mode of reckoning is discarded except 
in the one solitary instance of the 1st year of Jeroboam II, which is reckoned 
twice over, once to his predecessor and once to himself. 

From 2 Kings II 1,3 ' 4,21 we learn that Athaliah reigned 6 years, and was 
slain in the 7th, and from 2 Kings 12 1 that Joash of Judah reigned in Jehu's 
year 7. So that Jehu's year 7 = Athaliah's year 7 = Joash of Judah's year 1. 

Jehu reigned 28 years (2 Kings 10 3 6 ) and Jehu's year 7 = Joash of Judah's 
year 1. Therefore, Jehu's year 28 = Joash of Judah's year 22. 

Jehoahaz of Israel's year 1 = Joash of Judah's year 23 (2 Kings 13 1 ), and 
Jehoahaz of Israel reigned 17 years (2 Kings 13 1 ). Therefore, Jehoahaz 
of Israel's year 17 = Joash of Judah's year 39. 

Jehoahaz of Israel was succeeded by Jehoash of Israel. As Jehoahaz of 
Israel's last year was Joash of Judah's year 39, Jehoash of Israel's first year 
was Joash of Judah's year 40 (2 Kings 13 9 ). Jehoash of Israel's year 1 (as 
sole King) — Joash of Judah's year 40. But Jehoash of Israel reigned (as 
Co-Rex) in Joash of Judah's year 37 (2 Kings 13 10 ). Therefore, Jehoash 
of Israel was Co-Rex with his father Jehoahaz of Israel during the last three 
years of his father's reign. 

This is not a supposition or a hypothesis. It is a fact stated by implication 
in the Text itself, and being contained in the Text it is of equal authority with 
any other statement contained in the same Text. 

These Co-Reigns occur frequently in the history of Israel and Judah, 
from the time when Solomon was made King in the reign of David onward. 
They are also equally frequent in the annals of other Eastern nations. 

They do not become any less frequent by being referred to as " gratuitous," 
"fictitious " and " absurd." They are there in the Text itself. There is frequently 
a hint given in the Text as to the reason for them. In this case, the reason 
for the appointment of Jehoash of Israel as Co-Rex may have been the absence 
of Jehoahaz of Israel in his Syrian wars, when " the King of Syria made 
them (the people of Israel) like dust by threshing " (2 Kings 13 7 ). 

Amaziah succeeded Joash of Judah in Jehoash of Isarel's year 2 as sole 
King (2 Kings 12 21 , 14 1 ). He reigned 29 years (2 Kings 14 2 ). 

Jehoash of Israel reigned 16 years as sole King (2 Kings 13 10 ). Since 
Jehoash of Isarel's year 2 as sole King = Amaziah' s year 1, Jehoash of Israel's 
year 16 = Amaziah's year 15. But Amaziah's year 15 = Jeroboam II's year 1 
(2 Kings 14 2 3 ). Hence Amaziah's year 15 is a broken year, and is reckoned 
twice over, once as Jehoash of Israel's last year as sole King, and once as 
Jeroboam II's first year, according to the Israelite mode of reckoning, which 
reappears here for the last time. 

Amaziah lived after the death of Jehoash of Israel 15 years. Then a 
conspiracy was hatched against him. He fled from Jerusalem, and was slain 
at Lachish in Jeroboam II's year 15 (2 Kings I4 17-22 ). The interregnum 
which followed lasted for some time. The word "then" in 2 Chron. 26 1 



184 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



is a mistranslation. It represents the Hebrew Vav, which contains no note 
of time, and should be translated simply " And." 

Judah was divided into two parties. The conspirators gained their object. 
They slew King Amaziah and held their own for some years, but in the 27th 
year of Jeroboam II the scales were turned, and the other party, the people of 
Judah, got the upper hand and made Uzziah (Azariah) King instead of his 
father Amaziah (2 Kings 14 2 1 , 15 1 ). 

From the 15th year of Jeroboam II when Amaziah was slain (2 Kings 
14 17 " 22 ), to the 27th year of Jeroboam II when Uzziah was made King instead 
of his father Amaziah (2 Kings 15 1 ), is a period of 11 years during which the 
throne of Judah was vacant. 

Hence, Ussher is wrong in deleting these 11 years from the Chronology. 
He assumes that Jeroboam II was Co-Rex with his father Jehoash of Israel, 
for the long period of 11 years, being made Co-Rex in Jehoash of Israel's 
year 5. He assumes that the 27th year of Jeroboam II in 1 Kings 15 1 is the 
27th year of this assumed Co-Regency which began in the 5th year of Jehoash 
of Israel, the 27th year of this assumed Co-Regency being the 16th year of 
Jeroboam IFs reign as sole King. (See 2 Kings 15 1 , marginal note). This 
is one of the few blemishes in Ussher's work. 

He fell into the error because he had an axe to grind. He wanted to make 
our Lord's birth fall exactly 4,000 years after the creation of Adam. For this 
purpose he wanted to get rid of 7 years. He cuts out 11 years here and gets 
back 4 of them, one at a time, later on. But there is no room for doubt. 
The fact of the 11 years interregnum is as stable as any other fact which lies 
embedded in the Text, and cannot be ignored without throwing the whole 
scheme of the Chronology of the Text into hopeless confusion. 

Josephus made the same error as anyone else may do, quite easily, who is 
satisfied with a superficial and a cursory, instead of an attentive reading, of 
the narrative. But the interregnum is there and it cannot be got rid of. 
The gap of 11 years between Amaziah and Uzziah must be charted down. 

For 15 years Uzziah and Jeroboam II reigned together, Uzziah in Judah 
and Jeroboam II in Israel. Jeroboam II reigned 41 years (2 Kings 14 2 3 , 15 8 ). 
Jeroboam IFs year 27 was Uzziah's year 1. Therefore Jeroboam's year 41 
was Uzziah's year 15. Then follows a gap of 22 years from the year after 
Jeroboam IFs year 41, or Uzziah's year 16, to Uzziah's year 37, both inclusive, 
or from Uzziah's year 15 to Uzziah's year 38, both exclusive, an interregnum 
in the Kingdom of Israel of 22 years. 

By deleting the 11 years interregnum in the Kingdom of Judah, Ussher 
reduces the interregnum of the Kingdom of Israel by 11 years, viz. from 22 to 11. 
(See A.V. marginal note, 2 Kings 14 2 9 and 15 \) These years must be restored. 

Ussher's own notes are as follows : " Jeroboam seemeth to have been 
taken into the consortship of the Kingdom by his father Joash, going to war 
against the Syrians." " After Amaziah came Uzziah or Azariah, in the 27th 
year of Jeroboam, King of Israel, reckoning from the time that lie began to reign 
in consortship with his father." Ussher makes L'zziah (Azariah) succeed 
Amaziah immediately after Amaziah has completed his 29th year, which he 
identifies with the 16th year of Jeroboam IFs reign as sole King, and which he 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 185 

calls the 27th year of Jeroboam IFs reign. He ought to have inserted an 
interval between Amaziah and Uzziah, and made Uzziah succeed Amaziah 
after an interregnum of 11 years, in the 27th year of Jeroboam II, as stated 
in 2 Kings 15 1 . 

No account is given of the events which occurred in Israel during this 
interregnum which lasted 22 years, but the history indicates very plainly 
the straitened character of the times, and suggests a reason for the 
interregnum, for we are told that the country was overrun by enemies, and 
the name of Israel was in danger of being " blotted out from under heaven " 
(2 Kings 14 26 ' 27 ). Some mystery seems to hang over this period. During 
the first part of it Assyrian history is also a blank. 

It is the time of the Prophet Jonah (2 Kings 14 2 5 ) with his dread message : 
H< Yet 40 days and Nineveh shall be destroyed." It is the time of the earth- 
quake, two years before which Amos began to prophecy (Amos i 1 ), an earth- 
quake that was remembered even to the days of Zechariah, nearly 300 years 
later, the terror of which Zechariah uses as an image of the terror of the Day 
of Judgment. 

It was a time when the affliction of Israel was bitter, for " there was not 
any shut up nor left in Israel " (2 Kings 14 2 6 ). The author of the Companion 
Bible suggests that the words " shut up " are to be interpreted as meaning 
"protected," like those shut up in a fortress, and that the word "left" is 
a mistranslation. He derives the word so translated from the Hebrew 
word azab, to fortify, not from the Hebrew word hzab, to leave, 
to forsake. The meaning then is" there was no fortress and no fortification," 
or " no protection and no defence " against their foes. The bitterness of 
Israel's affliction at this time may possibly be connected with the Civil 
War by which the Kingdom of Israel was torn asunder from the reign of 
Jeroboam II to the close of its history. 

At the close of this interregnum of 22 years, in the 38th year of Uzziah, 
Zachariah the son of Jeroboam II reigned over Israel for six months (2 Kings 
15 8 ~ 10 ), and was slain by Shallum. 

In the following year, the 39th year of Uzziah, Shallum reigned one month 
and was slain by Menahem (2 Kings 15 13 - 14 ). 

In the same year, the 39th year of Uzziah, Menahem slew Shallum and 
reigned over Israel. Here we notice the adoption of the Judaite mode of 
reckoning the reigns of the Kings of Israel. This year, the 39th of Uzziah, is 
the accession year of Menahem. For he reigned 10 years, and if this 39th 
year of Uzziah's was his first year, there would be a break of one year between 
his last year and the first year of his son Pekahiah. 

Therefore Menahem's year i=Uzziah's year 40, Menahem's year 10 = 
Uzziah's year 49. Pekahiah's year 1 = Uzziah's year 50 (2 Kings 15 23 ), Peka- 
hiah's year 2— Uzziah's year 51 (2 Kings 15 23 ). 

Pekah's year 1 = Uzziah's year 52 (2 Kings 15 27 ). Jotham's year 1 = 
Pekah's year 2 (2 Kings I5 32 )=the year after Uzziah's year 52, which year 
52 was Uzziah's last year (2 Kings 15 2 ). 

Jotham reigned 16 years (2 Kings 15 3 3 ), and since Jotham's year 1 = Pekah's 
year 2, Jotham's year 16, his last y ear == Pekah's year 17. But Pekah's year 



186 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



17 was also Ahaz's accession year, for he reigned in the 17th year of Pekah 
(2 Kings 16 1 ). Consequently Pekah's year 18— Ahaz's year 1, and Pekah's 
year 20 his last year on the throne = Ahaz's year 3. 

We now reach one of the most interesting, and, at the same time, one of 
the most illuminating puzzles of the Chronology of this period. We read in 
2 Kings 15 30 , that Hoshea slew Pekah in the 20th year of Jotham, which is 
the year after the 20th of Pekah. Now Jotham only reigned 16 years alto- 
gether, and if Jotham's year 20 is the date intended, we should call this Ahaz's 
year 4. But in the Text it is called the 20th year of Jotham. 

Why is this ? The history supplies a reason in the character of the wicked 
King Ahaz. Two characters in the narrative of the Kings of Israel and Judah 
are marked with an index finger of horror and scorn, as pointing to the names 
of two persons singled out for fierce execration and perpetual reproach. In 

2 Kings 9 37 , we read " This is Jezebel," and in 2 Chron. 28 22 , " This is that 
King Ahaz." 

It was Ahaz who " made molten images for Baalim," who " burnt his 
children in the fire after the abominations of the heathen," who " made Judah. 
naked and transgressed sore against the Lord." The cup was full. The 
writer could say no more. " This is that King Ahaz." "And " (not " for " as in 
A.V. and R.V.), with a fine finishing touch of irony the writer adds this last 
mark of his contempt and scorn, " he sacrificed to the gods of Damascus which 
smote him, and he said, Because the gods of the Kings of Syria help them, 
therefore I will sacrifice to them, that they may help me. But they were the 
ruin of him, and of all Israel." That explains the Chronology. As Dr. John 
Lightfoot quaintly observes, " The Holy Ghost chooseth rather to reckon by 
holy Jotham in his grave, than by wicked Ahaz alive," and instead of the 4th 
year of Ahaz we get the 20th year of Jotham. 

Pekah was slain by Hoshea in the 20th year of Jotham, i.e. in the 4th year 
of Ahaz, i.e. in the year after the 20th year of Pekah. So then he was de- 
throned in his 20th year, and slain the year after the 20th, and last year of his 
reign. 

Then comes another gap, an interregnum or a period of anarchy lasting 
8 years. For although Pekah's throne was empty in the 4th year of Ahaz, 
Hoshea did not himself begin to reign till the 12th of Ahaz (2 Kings 17 1 ). 

Ahaz's year 12 is Hoshea's year 1. For Hoshea reigned 9 years (2 Kings 
17 1 ), and Hoshea's year 9 — Hezekiah's year 6 (2 Kings 18 10 ), and Hoshea's 
year 7 = Hezekiah's year 4 (2 Kings 18 9 ). Therefore Hoshea's year 4 = Heze- 
kiah's year 1. But Hoshea's year 4 is also Ahaz's year 15 because Hoshea's 
year 3 is Hezekiah's accession year (2 Kings 18 1 ). Therefore Hoshea's year 3 
— Ahaz's year 14, and consequently Hoshea's year 1 = Ahaz's year 12 (2 Kings 
17 1 ). Therefore the gap between Pekah's year 20, his last year on the throne, 
and Hoshea's year 1, is the gap between Ahaz's year 3 and his j*ear 12, both 
exclusive, or the gap between Ahaz's year 4 and his year 11, both inclusive, 
and this is a period of 8 calendar years. 

Hoshea's year 1 = Ahaz's year 12 (2 Kings 17 1 ). Therefore Hoshea's year 

3 = Ahaz's year 14. And Ahaz reigned 16 years (2 Kings 16 2 ). But Hoshea's 
year 3 = Hezekiah's accession year (2 Kings 18 1 ). Therefore Hezekiah was 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



187 



Co-Rex with Ahaz during Ahaz's years 14, 15 and 16. Ahaz's year 14 = Heze- 
kiah's accession year. Ahaz's year 15 — Hezekiah's year 1. Ahaz's year 
16 — Hezekiah's year 2. 

The year in which Hezekiah began to reign as Co-Rex with his father(Ahaz's 
year 14), is Hezekiah's accession year. As soon as he got firmly into the 
saddle he took matters into his own hands. He was 25 years of age, and in the 
first year of his reign, and the very first month of it (2 Chron. 29 3 ), and on the 
very first day of the month (2 Chron. 29 17 ),he made a clean sweep of the 
idolatrous practices of his father Ahaz. 

He opened the doors of the house of the Lord which Ahaz had shut up 
(2 Chron. 28 2 4 ). He removed the high places, broke in pieces the stone statues 
of Baal, cut down the wooden images of Ashtoreth, and " brake in pieces the 
brasen serpent that Moses had made, and called it Nehushtan (a piece of 
brass) " (2 Kings 18 4 ). They cleansed the Sanctuary in 16 days (2 Chron. 
29 17 ). It was now too late to keep the Passover at the proper time in the 
1st month, so they observed the feast on the 14th day of the 2nd month. 

The remnant of Israel that were escaped out of the hands of the Kings 
of Assyria were invited to attend this great Passover (2 Chron. 30 6 ), and they 
came from Ephraim and Manasseh and Issachar and Zebulum (2 Chron. 30 18 ), 
and there was no Passover like it since the time of Solomon (2 Chron. 30 2 6 ). 

"And Hezekiah rejoiced, and all the people, that God had prepared the 
people: for the thing was done suddenly " (2 Chron. 29 s6 ). 

It was a sudden coup d'etat. It had been prepared for by the inspiring 
ministry of Isaiah, and the secret influence of Hezekiah during his Co-Rex ship 
with his father. When Ahaz died, the revulsion of the people was deep and 
widespread. This first year of Hezekiah, when he was 25 years of age, was 
not his accession year as Co-Rex (the 14th of Ahaz), and not his first year as 
Co-Rex (the 15th of Ahaz), but his first year as sole King, in the year after 
Ahaz's death. That explains how it was that the great religious revival 
broke out so suddenly on the 1st day of the 1st month of Hezekiah's reign as 
sole King. It had been prepared for. The people were ready for it. It met 
with an immediate response, and it spread like wildfire throughout the two 
Kingdoms. 

A difficulty has been raised respecting the age of Ahaz at the birth of his 
son Hezekiah, who is said from a comparison of 2 Kings 16 2 and 2 Kings 18 2 to* 
have been born when his father was only 8 years old. But Ahaz was 20 when 
he began to reign (2 Kings 16 2 ), and 36 when he died and Hezekiah was 25 
when he began to reign as sole King the year after the 16th of Ahaz (2 Kings 
18 2 ). Hence Hezekiah was 25 when Ahaz was 37, i.e. Ahaz was 12 when 
Hezekiah was born, not 9 as he would have been if he had been 25 in his- 
accession year, the 14th of Ahaz. Hezekiah was 25, not in his accession year 
as Co-Rex, but in his first year as sole King. 



188 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



Chapter XXII. Judah from the Fall of Samaria to the Captivity. 

(an. hom. 3406-3520) 

Samaria fell in the 9th year of Hoshea, which was the 6th year of Hezekiah, 
the year an. hom. 3406. The account of the fall of Samaria in 2 Kings 18 9 - 1 0 is 
very condensed but perfectly accurate. We know from the records of Assyria 
that it was taken by Sargon. Scripture says, " Shalmaneser came up against 
Samaria and besieged it." So he did. " And at the end of three years," 
not " he took," but " they took it," implying that someone else was concerned 
in the actual taking of the city beside Shalmaneser, who began the siege. 

This is not the place to discuss the authorship of the so-called Deutero- 
or Trito-Isaiah. But it may be pointed out that the critical year of the 
reign of Hezekiah was the 14th. It was the year of Sennacherib's invasion, 
when the angel of the Lord went forth and smote in the camp of the Assyrians 
185,000, and when they arose early in the morning they were all dead corpses 
(2 Kings i8 13 -i9 37 , Is. 36.37). It was the year of Hezekiah's sickness, when 
the Lord brought the shadow 10 degrees backward by which it had gone 
down in the dial of Ahaz (2 Kings 20 Is. 38). It was the year of 

the embassy of Merodach-baladan of Babylon (2 Kings 20 12 " 21 , Is. 39). 

It was the year in which Isaiah said to Hezekiah, " Behold, the days come, 
that all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store 
until this day, shall be carried to Babylon ; nothing shall be left, saith the Lord. 
And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they 
take away ; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the King of Babylon" 
(Isaiah 39 1- 6 - 7 ). These three great events, the destruction of the host of 
Sennacherib of Assyria, the sickness of Hezekiah, and Isaiah's prophecy of the 
Babylonian captivity, all fell out in the same year and made it the great 
critical year of Hezekiah's life. 

They are all recorded in Isaiah 36-39, a passage which forms the true 
second part of Isaiah, the connecting link between Isaiah 1-35, and 
Isaiah 40-66. These last 27 chapters should not be called the second, but 
the third part of Isaiah. The Prophet foresaw and foretold, not only the 
captivity, but also the return from Babylon. This is the subject elaborated 
in these last 27 chapters of Isaiah, and the present writer agrees with 
Professor R. G. Moulton and the Poet Tennyson in believing that, with the 
preceding 39 chapters, they form one indivisible literary and artistic whole, 
and are the work of one and the same man. They belong to the last fifteen 
years of the reign of Hezekiah, from this his 14th year, to his 29th and last. 

Up to this point, the Chronology has been so locked and interlocked by 
checks and cross-checks, that it has been almost impossible for anyone to 
err in regard to it, provided that the statements in the Text are strictly adhered 
to in every case. From the accession of Manasseh to the reign of Josiah, 
we have no check on the numbers given, but from the 13th year of Josiah 
onward, they are checked by the long periods in the Prophets (Jer. 25 1 3 ), 
and by synchronisms with the years of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 
24 8 ~ 12 , 25 2 ~ 8 , Jer. 32 \ etc). 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



189 



But in the Kingdom of Judah, the Chronology always follows the Judaite 
mode of reckoning, and never counts a year twice over, or gives it to both 
the outgoing and the incoming King, with the one single exception of the 
case of Ahaziah the son of Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, an 
exception which proves the rule, for Ahaziah is not reckoned as a true des- 
cendant of the line of David, but " an imp of the house of Omri," whose years 
are naturally computed by the Israelite mode of reckoning. Apart from the 
special circumstances of this case, the reigns of the Kings of Judah are always 
reckoned as calendar years, the broken year being always reckoned to the 
outgoing, and never to the incoming King, the outgoing King's last year 
being always regarded as the incoming King's accession year, and the following 
calendar year as the first year of his reign. We cannot be wrong in applying 
the Judaite mode of reckoning to the cases of Manasseh, Amon and Josiah, 
the only three cases in which the mode of reckoning cannot be checked. 

Manasseh reigned 55 years (2 Kings 21 1 ). Fifty-five calendar years must 
be allotted to him in full in our Chronology of his reign. Amon reigned 2 
years (2 Kings 21 19 ). Two years must be allotted to him. Josiah reigned 
31 years (2 Kings 22 1 ). Thirty-one years must be allotted to him. 

Jehoahaz reigned 3 months, the whole of which was included in the Josiah's 
year 31. If his reign had gone over into the New Year he would have been 
described as having reigned one year. It is of the essence of the method 
of the Chronology that it deals only with whole years. Fractions do not 
count ; they do not come into the Chronology at all. 

Jehoiakim reigned 11 years. His accession took place either during the 
31st year of Josiah, which would then be called his accession year, or else 
immediately after, at the beginning of the New Year. In either case 
Jehoiakim's year 1 is the calendar year that follows next after Josiah's 
year 31. 

The correctness of these results is proved by the long period given in 
Jeremiah 25 1_3 . The 4th year of Jehoiakim was one of the most critical 
years in the history of Judah. It was the year in which Jeremiah prophesied 
that both Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, and all the world, from Egypt 
to Media, should serve the King of Babylon 70 years (Jer. 25 1:L ~ 26 ). 

It was the year which synchronised with the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar 
King of Babylon (Jer. 25 1 ), the most important synchronism in the whole 
Bible, for it enables us to connect the Sacred Chronology, from the creation of 
Adam to the 4th year of Jehoiakim, with the recorded dates of profane history 
from that point, both forward and backward, as far as they have been faithfully 
preserved and accurately ascertained from the writings and Monuments of 
antiquity. 

Finally, it was the year in which Jeremiah solemnly recounted the results of 
the work of the past 23 years of his ministry, thereby giving us this valuable 
synchronism. "From the 13th year of Josiah, the son of Amon King of Judah, 
even unto this day (the 4th of Jehoiakim), these 23 years, the word of the Lord 
hath come unto me, and I have spoken unto you rising up early and speaking ; 
but ye have not hearkened" (Jer. 25 s , R.V.). What are "these 23 
years ? " 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



They are as follows : — 



The 23 years of Jeremiah 25 s . 

1 = Josiah's year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

2 ,, „ 14 

3 „ » 15 

4 ,, ,, 16 

5 » » ■ 17 

6 „ „ 18 

7 » » 19 

8 ,, „ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 

9 ,, ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 

10 ,, „ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 

11 » » 23 

12 „ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 

13 „ i» 25 

14 ,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 

15 » M 27 

16 „ „ 28 

17 » » 29 

18 „ „ 30 

19= Josiah's year 31 = Jehoiachin's 3 mos. = Jehoiakim's accession year. 

20= Jehoiakim's year . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

21 ,, . • . • . . . . . . . . 2 

22 „ „ 3 

23 » » 4 



This enables us to bridge the gulf between the last year of Josiah and the 
1st of Jehoiakim, and proves conclusively that the computation given above 
is correct. 

Chapter XXIII. Comparative Chronology — Saul to the Captivity. 

We have now traced the history of the Hebrew people during the period 
of the Monarchy, from the first year of Saul to " the 4th year of Jehoiakim 

. that was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar " (Jer. 25 1 ), as it is recorded by 
•contemporary prophetic narrators in their own annals. The Chronology is 
so precise, and the history of the Kingdom of Israel is so closely locked and 
interlocked with that of the Kingdom of Judah, that it is next to impossible 
for any error to have crept into it. The connections are so perfect that to 
alter any one text by one single year, is to throw the Chronology of the w hole 
into hopeless confusion. No method for the better preservation of a chrono- 
logical Record for all succeeding generations could be devised or even imagined. 
We may rely absolutely on the authenticity and the correctness of every 
chronological statement in this Record, as it has been preserved to us, and as we 
have it in our hands to-day. 

There are numerous other witnesses by whose testimony the chronological 
.data for this period, as given in the Old Testament, can be tested, and it is 
not too much to say that wherever it has been thus brought into court, its 
.accuracy and its authenticity have been amply and invariably vindicated. " In 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 191 

every case where we can test it by contemporaneous Monuments, the authenticity 
of which is doubted by no one," says Prof. A. H. Sayce, " we find it confirmed 
and explained even in the minutest details." 

These other witnesses may be grouped under three heads — Egypt, Moab 
and Assyria. 

1. Egypt. 

In Egypt we have the celebrated Shishak Inscription, on the south wall of 
the temple of Amon at Karnak. This Temple is one of the noblest examples 
of the majesty and sublimity of Egyptian architecture. Karnak is situated 
on the right bank of the river Nile, a very short distance from the site of 
Thebes, now Luxor, the ancient capital of Egypt. Karnak is the " populous 
No," or better, as in the margin, the " No-Amon " of Nahum 3 s . 

Shashanq I, or Sheshonk I, as the name is now pronounced by the modern 
guide to the temple ruins, is the Shishak of the Old Testament. To him 
Jeroboam fled when Solomon sought to kill him (1 Kings 11 40 ). In the fifth 
year of King Rehoboam, Shishak came up against Jerusalem, plundered the 
Temple and took away all the treasures of the hing's House (1 Kings 
14 2 5 2 6 , 2 Chron. 12 2 ~ 9 ). 

Shishak was the founder of a new dynasty, the 22nd or Bubastite dynasty, 
so called because it alone of all the 31 dynasties had its capital at Bubastis. 

Near the close of his 21st year, Shishak commissioned Haremsaf, his Chief 
of Public Works, to execute a memorial of his conquests, and the result was 
the great bas-relief on the walls of the temple of Amon at Karnak. In this 
Inscription, Shishak mentions the names of 133 cities of the Kingdom of Judah, 
like Beth-horon, Gibeon, Mahanaim, Shunem, Megiddo, etc., as taken by him 
during this invasion. 

He does not give the exact date of his warlike operations in Palestine, but 
we know from 1 Kings 14 2 5 that it was in the 5th year of Rehoboam's reign 
(b.c. 982-966), viz. in the year B.C. 978. We can never be sure of any Egyptian 
dates at this early period, but several computations have been made from 
various approximate data. 

The Egyptian Monuments generally give the year of the reign of the King 
in whose reign they are executed, but the King may have lived on a year or 
more after executing his last Monument. His years will therefore be expressed 
by the highest number found on any Monument plus an unknown remainder. 

The later King Shabaka, the So of 2 Kings 17 4 , was on the throne when 
Sargon invaded Palestine in B.C. 720, and for an unknown period before that 
event. Professor Breasted, in his Ancient Records, gives the minimum length 
of the Kings from that date back to the 1st year of the 22nd dynasty, which 
was the 1st year of Shishak, as follows : — 



Egyptian Kings from 


Shishak to Shabaka. 






Accession of Shabaka or So . . 


B.C. 


720 years 


+ 


1 King, 24th dynast}- 




6 „ 


+ 


3 Kings, 23rd 




37 » 


+ 


6 Kings, 22nd „ 




230 » 


+ 




B.C. 


993 » 


+ 



192 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



A similar computation from the accession of Tirhaka, B.C. 701 + , makes 
the number 998 + . To this we must add the unknown number of years that 
So had reigned before his defeat by Sargon, and the unknown number of 
years that each of the other ten Kings reigned after the date of the latest 
Monument we moderns have happened to discover. We must then deduct 
the unknown number of years by which these reigns overlap each other. But 
if we suppose these additions and subtractions to cancel each other, we shall 
probably not be more than 5, 10, 15 or 20 years out. 

Shishak's Inscription was executed in the 21st year of his reign. If his. 
1st year was B.C. 998 (or 993), and his invasion of Palestine the year before 
that of his Inscription, that would bring the date of his expedition against 
Rehoboam to the year B.C. 978 (or 973), i.e. in the exact year (or within 5 
years) of the 5th year of Rehoboam, B.C. 978. This is quite as exact as we 
could expect. 

Other estimates for the accession of Shishak are Brugsch 980, Marriette 
980, Whitehouse 966, Lepsius 961, Flinders Petrie 952. The lowest of these 
is within 26 years of the 5th year of Rehoboam, and is quite a possible 
synchronism, but the date which is excluded by the synchronism is the 
Assyrian date c. B.C. 947, which, by omitting the blank of 51 years between 
Ramman Nirari III and Ashurdan III (b.c. 834-783), makes the 20th 
year of Shishak c. 927, or 51 years after the 5th of Rehoboam. 

This is a decisive argument, from the uncertain but approximate dates 
of Egypt, against the omission of the 51 years from the Chronology of Assyria, 
but the Egyptian Monuments have no testimony to bear against the Biblical 
date of the 5th year of Rehoboam, for the invasion of Judah by Shishak. 

We must not, however, lay too much stress upon any argument connected 
with Egyptian Chronology. The data are so uncertain that no reliance can 
be placed upon any conclusion derived from them. In order to show the 
highly speculative nature of the Chronology of Egypt adopted by modern 
Egyptologists, it will be necessary to examine the method by which their 
chronological results are obtained. 

We cannot do better than take the chapter on "The Revision of Chronology. ' ' 
by Prof. W. M. Flinders Petrie, in his recently published Researches in Sinai 
(1906). Prof. Petrie stands almost alone amongst Egyptian Chronologists 
in the contention that none of Manetho's dynasties are contemporary. 
" Every instance of double reckoning, or, contemporary dynasties of 
Kings in Manetho," he says, " has broken down on examination. Not a 
single overlapping period can be proved against him." Hence Prof. Petrie 's 
date for the 1st dynasty is B.C. 5510. 

The principal sources of our knowledge of Egyptian Chronology are (1) 
the Turin Papyrus, a list of Kings compiled in the 19th dynasty ; (2) the 
list of Kings and dynasties preserved by Manetho, of the 3rd century B.C., 
a list known to us only in fragments at second or third hand, and much altered 
in the process of transmission ; and (3) the records of the Monuments. 

The Turin Papyrus is illegible and incomplete. The list of Manetho 
is incomplete and self-contradictory. The Monuments- do not give any 
chronological data earlier than the 19th dynasty, say about B.C. 1590. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



Failing authentic sources of information, recourse is had to the method 
of astronomical calculation. 

The Egyptians ignored leap year, and counted only 365 days to every 
year. Hence every month slipped back \ of a day every year, a whole day 
every four years, a whole year every 365x4=1,460 years. This period of 
1,460 years was called the Sothic period. At the commencement of the 
period, the star Sirius, called by the Egyptians Sothis, first appeared in the 
glow of sunrise at early dawn just before the sun. 

Censorinus (a.d. 238) says one Sothic period commenced a.d. 139. Conse- 
quently, other Sothic periods must have commenced B.C. 1322, 2782, 4242 
and 5702, at regular intervals of 1,460 years. 

A papyrus from Kahun, now at Berlin, states that there was a rising of 
Sirius on the 17th of the month Pharmuthi in the 7th year of Senusert III, 
of the 12th dynasty, which may have been the year B.C. 1874, or the year 
1874+ 1460 = B.C. 3334, and consequently the close of the 12th dynasty 
was either in the year B.C. 1786, or in the year B.C. 3246. 

The Berlin school of Egyptologists assume that the closing year of the 12th 
dynasty was the year B.C. 1786. Professor Petrie assumes that it was the 
year B.C. 3246. There is no Monumental evidence that can be brought forward 
by the advocates of either of the two schools to decide between them. 

In order to arrive at any conclusion on the matter they have to fall back 
upon the already discarded Turin Papyrus and Manetho, which differ from 
each other by a period of 258 years, which are only known to us in illegible 
fragments, which offer self-contradictory testimony, which cannot be checked 
by the Monuments during the period of the first six dynasties, and one of 
which, Manetho, is said to be in error wherever he can be checked by them. 

Apart from which Professor Petrie himself admits that even if all these 
difficulties were removed, astronomical calculations in regard to the pre- 
cessional movement of the Pole may introduce a difference of two or three 
Centuries from the dates which he adopts. 

Under these circumstances the proper course is to admit that we are not 
in possession of the materials necessary to enable us to arrive at a scientific 
conclusion on the matter, and every date ascribed to an Egyptian Monument 
in the British Museum, on grounds similar to those explained above, ought to 
be marked with a query. 

2. Moab. 

11 I Mesha am son of Chemosh-[Gad ?], King of Moab, the Dibonite. My 
father reigned over Moab 30 years, and I reigned after my father. And I erected 
this high place to Chemosh at Kahara (a Stone of Sal) vation for he saved me from 
all despoilers (?) and let me see my desire upon all my enemies. Omri was King 
of Israel, and oppressed Moab many days, for Chemosh was angry with his land. 
His son succeeded him, and he also said, I will oppress Moab. In my days he said, 
Let us go and I will see my desire on him and on his house, and Israel said I shall 
destroy it for ever. Now Omri took the land Medeba and occupied it his days and 
half his son's days (or he and his son and his son's) son forty years. And Chemosh 

N 



i 9 4 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



had mercy on it in my days ; and I built Baal Meon, and made therein the 
reservoir and I built Kirjathaim. And the men of Gad dwelled in the land 
(Ataro)th from of old, and the King of Israel restored (At)aroth, and I assaulted 
the city and captured it." 

So runs the opening sentence of this ancient Monument, the discovery 
of which, by Rev. F. Klein, of the Church Missionary Society, in 1868, created 
intense interest throughout all Europe. 

It is the oldest Semitic lapidary record yet discovered ; in the course of a 
couple of Centuries it will be 3,000 years old. It takes us half way back to 
the Bible date for the beginning of the race. It exhibits the most ancient 
specimen of alphabetical writing yet discovered. It is older than two-thirds 
of the Old Testament itself. Its principal interests are theological and lin- 
guistic, but it has also a historic, and even a chronological value, corroborating 
as it does the authenticity of the Biblical Record. 

Dr. Ginsburg, in his excellent monograph on The Moabite Stone, gives a 
facsimile of the Stone itself, an introduction, a translation and a commentary. 
He has also added an interesting account of its discovery. 

The Omri here described as the oppressor of Moab, is the King of Israel 
mentioned in 1 Kings 16 16 " 28 . His date is B.C. 936-925. His son would be 
Ahab (b.c. 925-904) and his son's son Jehoram of Israel (b.c. 904-893). 
Mesha's father's reign of 30 years would be during the reigns of Baasha (b.c. 
960-937) and Elah (b.c. 937-936), and part of Omri's reign. The forty years of 
the oppression of Moab would be the remainder of Omri's reign and the 
reign of Ahab (b.c. 925-904), and part of Jehoram of Israel's reign (b.c. 
904-893). (See Vol. II, Chronological Tables, pp. 23.24). 

Upon the accession of Ahaziah of Israel we read (2 Kings 1 1 , 3 4 ' 5 ) : " Then 
Moab rebelled against Israel after the death of Ahab. . . And Mesha, King of 
Moab, was a sheepmaster, and rendered unto the King of Israel (Jehoram of 
Israel) 100,000 lambs and 100,000 rams, with the wool. But it came to pass 
when Ahab was dead, that the King of Moab rebelled against the King of 
Israel." 

Whereupon Jehoram of Israel, with Jehoshaphat of Judah, and the King of 
Edom, made war against Moab (2 Kings 3 6 " 25 ). " And when the King of Moab 
saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him 700 men that drew 
swords, to break through even unto the King of Edom : but they could not. 
Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered 
him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great indignation against 
Israel : and they departed from him and returned to their own land " (2 Kings 

^ 2 6. 2 7J 

The last phrase is euphemistic. It means that though Moab was at first 
defeated and hard pressed, in the end the allies were beaten back, and there 
was aroused against Israel a feeling of intense indignation, in the strength of 
which Mesha renewed the battle, the siege was raised and victory remained 
with Mesha. 

It was in the days of Jehoram of Judah (B.C. 905-893) , which run almost 
exactly parallel with those of Jehoram of Israel (b.c. .904-893), that Edom 
also revolted from Judah. "In the days of Jehoram of Judah, Edom re- 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 195 



volted from under the hand of Judah and made a King over themselves " 
(2 Kings 8 20 ). 

There was a weakening of power in both Israel and Judah. Mesha took 
advantage of it and threw off the yoke, and then erected this triumphal pillar 
to commemorate the result. 

The Moabite Stone fits in exactly with the Old Testament narrative. 
They mutually illustrate and confirm each other. 

The great value of the Moabite Stone lies in the fact that it is a history 
of events which were contemporary with the Inscription which records them. 
And this ancient witness, a witness in the presence of which most of the coins, 
manuscripts and Inscriptions of antiquity are comparatively young, has come 
forth out of the dark recesses of past millenniums, to corroborate the 
authenticity of the Hebrew Records contained in the Old Testament. It 
brings us face to face with the very times of Omri and Ahab, Elijah and 
Elisha, Jehoshaphat and Jehu. 

3. Assyria. 

However great the interest and value of the Shishak Inscription and the 
Moabite Stone may be, on various accounts, they cannot for one moment 
be compared for chronological purposes with the interest and value of the 
Cuneiform Inscriptions recently discovered in Assyria, Babylon and Persia. 

Throughout the Middle Ages, Nineveh remained unknown to Europe. The 
natives of the district had, however, preserved the name and the tradition 
of the site of Nineveh among the mounds of Nunia, opposite Mosul, on the 
Tigris. It was pointed out to Benjamin Tudela, a.d. 1160, and its ruins 
were described by Rauwolf (1573), Sherley (1599), Tavernier (1644), The venot 
(1663), the Jesuit writer of the Lettres Edificantes (1675), Otter (1734), Niebuhr 
(1766) and Ollivier (1794). But the discovery of the Cuneiform Inscriptions 
of Assyria, Babylon and Persia, was the romance of the 19th Century. The 
mounds of Nineveh were explored by Rich in 1820, and by Commander Jones 
in 1852. In 1850 Botta excavated Khorsabad (Dur-Sarrukin or Sargonsburg) , 
the great northren suburb of Nineveh, containing the vast palace of Sargon II. 
Sir H. Layard excavated Kouyunjik (Central Nineveh) with its palaces 
of Sennacherib and Ashur-bani-pal, and Nimrud (Calah) with its N.W. palace 
of Ashur-nasir-pal, its S.W. palace of Esar-haddon, and its central palace of 
Shalmaneser II (III). These excavations were continued by Mr. Rassam 
and others, and are still proceeding. 

In 1847 Sir Henry Rawlinson published the text of the Behistun Inscription 
in three languages — (1) Persian, (2) contemporary Elamite or Susian, and 
(3) Assyrian or Babylonian. The Behistun Inscription provided the key 
for the decipherment of the Assyrian Inscriptions, as the Rosetta Stone 
provided the key to the interpretation of the Egyptian Inscriptions. 

Grotefend, Burnouf, Lassen, Dr. Hincks, and George Smith, took a leading 
part in the interpretation of the Cuneiform characters inscribed on slabs, 
bulls, cylinders, tablets, bricks, etc., now treasured up in the British Museum 
and the Louvre, through which a new world of ancient history has been 



i 9 6 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



opened up to the astonished gaze of modern Europe. These inestimably 
precious treasures of antiquity lay buried with a hoard of clay documents, 
till they were dug up by Layard and interpreted by Dr. Hincks, Sir H. 
Rawlinson, and other pioneers in the art of deciphering these ancient records. 

These important lapidary documents, which have been used in constructing 
:a Chronology of the ancient Empires of Assyria and Babylon during the period 
<of the Hebrew Monarchy, may be classified as follows : — 

Assyrian Cuneiform Inscriptions. 

A. The Historical Inscriptions of the Kings. 

I. Shalmaneser II (III), B.C. 911-876. (Assyrian Dates — B.C. 860-825). 
II. Tiglath-Pileser III (IV) 745-727. 

III. Shalmaneser IV (V) . . 727-722. 

IV. Sargon II . . . . 722-705. 
V. Sennacherib . . . . 705-681. 

VI. Esar-haddon .. 681-668. 
VII. Ashur-bani-pal . . .. 668-626. 

B. The Assyrian Eponym Canon. 

C. Fragmentary Lists of Assyrian Eponyms. 

D. The Synchronous History of Assyria and Babylon. 

The dates given in the present work are those adopted by Willis J. Beecher, 
in his Dated Events of the Old Testament. The Assyrian dates, which precede 
the great gap, B.C. 834-783, are all 51 years later. After we reach the reign 
of Shalmaneser III (IV), b.c 783-773, they coincide. The Assyrian dates are 
adopted by E. A. Wallis Budge, in his Guide to the Babylonian and Assyrian 
Antiquities in the British Museum, and by many other Assyriologists, but, 
in the view of the present writer, they are 51 years too recent. 

A. The Historical Inscriptions of the Kings. 

I. Shalmaneser II, b.c 911-876 (Assyrian dates = B.C. 860-825), is called 
Shalmaneser III by recent writers like C. H. W. Johns, in Ancient Assyria, 
published 1912, on account of the recent discovery of an earlier King of the 
same name. 

Shalmaneser's long reign of 35 years was a protracted military campaign 
against Babylon, Mesopotamia, Armenia and the peoples of Asia Minor. 
The Hittites of Carchemish were compelled to pay tribute, and Hamath and 
Damascus were subdued. 

Prof. Saycesays : " In b.c 854 (Assyrian Dates) = B.C. 905, a league formed 
by Hamath, Arvad, Ammon, Ahab of Israel and other neighbouring Princes, 
under the leadership of Damascus, fought an indecisive battle against him 
at Karkar, and other battles followed in 849 ( = b.c 900) and 846 (=B.C. 897). 
In 842 ( = b.c. 893) Hazael was compelled to take refuge within the walls 
of his capital. The territory of Damascus was devastated, and Jehu of Samaria 
(whose ambassadors are represented on the black obelisk now in the British 
Museum), sent tribute Shalmaneser II (III) built a palace at Calah, 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



197 



and the annals of his reign are engraved on an obelisk of black marble which he 
erected there (Encyclopedia Britannica, nth Edition, Article — Shalmaneser II.) 

The position of the palace of Shalmaneser II (III) is indicated in the 
following diagram of ancient Nineveh, its suburbs and its palaces. 



DIAGRAM OF ANCIENT Ml M£ VEH. 

with its 5 u |3 u R B s 
.D U K-SA RGrfVA/ = KttQKSAWb 
A iMT> 

CALAH - N I M R UP 





:DUH~Sf-b 



j 

ANClklMT n/aTEVEH •• KOUYUNJ] K 

\ \ \ 0 



Of\ LA H = N//VI RUD, 



'V>> 



198 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



Shalmaneser II (III) has left us an account of his conquests during the first 
31 years of his reign down to B.C. 880, the year in which the Black Obelisk 
was finished. . Then his son Ashur-danin-apli rebelled against him, and the 
remaining four years of his reign was a time of civil war. Shalmaneser II 
(III) held Calah, but Nineveh, Asshur and most of the chief cities of Assyria 
went over to his rebel son Ashur-danin-apli. Shalmaneser died B.C. 876 
after 31 years of undivided rule, and 4 years of divided rule. He was then 
succeeded by his other son and legal successor, Shamshi-Adad ( = Shamshi- 
Ramman II), who had to fight two years more before he won his crown in 
B.C. 874. 

Shalmaneser II (III) has left us the following Monumental Inscriptions : — 

1. The Kurkh Monolith (Rawlinson's Cuneiform Inscriptions, vol. hi, p. 8). 

In this he says that in the 6th year of his reign he left Nineveh, 
crossed the Tigris and the Euphrates, and came to Syria where he 
captured 

12,000 chariots, 1,200 carriages and 
20,000 men of Ben-hadad of Syria, 
700 chariots, 700 carriages and 
10,000 men of Irhuleni of Hamath, and 
2,000 chariots and 10,000 men of Ahab of Sirhala (Israel) , 
overthrowing all the 12 Kings whom Ben-hadad of Syria had brought 
him. This was in the sixth year of his reign, B.C. 905 (Assyrian dates 
B.C. 854). 

2. The Bull Inscription (Rawlison's Cuneiform Inscriptions, vol. iii, p. 5, 

No. 6). In this he says : — 

" In my 18th year the sixteenth time the river Euphrates I crossed. 
Hazael of Syria ... I overthrew. 18,000 men of his army 
with weapons I destroyed. 1,121 of his chariots, 470 of his 
carriages, with his camp, I took from him. To save his life he 
fled. After him I pursued, in Damascus his royal city I besieged 
him ... In those days the tribute of Tyre and Zidon, of Jehu 
son of Omri, I received." 
This event is referred to in the following Inscription : — 

3. The celebrated Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser II (III) in the British 

Museum (Layard, p. 98, 1. 2). Here the Inscription runs : — 

" Tribute of Jehu son of Omri, silver, gold, bowls of gold, cups of 
gold, bottles of gold, vessels of gold, maces, royal utensils, rods 
of wood I received from him." 

From these three Inscriptions it will be seen that Shalmaneser came into 
touch with Israel on two distinct occasions. In the sixth year of his reign 
(b.c. 905) he says he took 2,000 chariots and 10,000 men from Ahab. who 
was one of 12 Kings joined together in alliance against him, under the leadership 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



199 



of Ben-hadad of Syria. And in the 18th year of his reign (b.c. 893) he fought 
another campaign against Hazael of Syria, the successor of Ben-hadad, at which 
time he received tribute from Jehu. 

This exactly fits in with the Biblical narrative. A reference to Vol. II, 
Chronological Tables, p. 24, an. hom. 3220-3232 will show that the 
6th year of Shalmaneser II (III) (b.c. 905) is the 21st year of Ahab, and that 
the 18th year of Shalmaneser II (III) (b.c. 893) is the year of Jehu's accession. 

Shalmaneser's 6th year could not have been later than the 21st year of 
Ahab, for in his 22nd, which was his last year, he was not in alliance with 
Ben-hadad of Syria, but at war with him. In 1 Kings 22 L 2 we read that after 
a series of wars between Ben-hadad of Syria and Ahab of Israel, " they continued 
3 years without war between Syria and Israel, and it came to pass in the 3rd 
year " that Ahab and Jehoshaphat went up to Ramoth-gilead and fought a 
battle against the King of Syria, in which Ahab was killed. 

The three years' truce between Syria and Israel was the truce of the 19th, 
20th and 21st years of Ahab. During these three years Ben-hadad formed 
the league of the 12 Kings, and in the last of them, i.e. in the 6th year of 
Shalmaneser's reign, which was the 21st year of Ahab's reign, the year b.c. 905, 
Ben-hadad and Ahab fought against Shalmaneser and were defeated. In 
this year Ahaziah the son of Ahab was associated with his father as Co-Rex 
of Israel, during his father's absence at the war. In the following year, the 
22nd year of Ahab, b.c. 904, Ahab was no longer in alliance with Ben-hadad, 
but was fighting against him at Ramoth-gilead, with his ally Jehoshaphat 
of Judah. 

But if Shalmaneser's 6th year could not have been later than the 21st 
year of Ahab (the year B.C. 905), his 18th year could not have been earlier than 
the accession year of Jehu (the year B.C. 893), for in that year Jehu first came 
to the throne. The synchronism is therefore absolutely exact. It is also 
determinative. It fixes this and every other date at which the history of 
Assyria comes into contact with the history of Israel and Judah. It could 
not have been one year earlier, for then Jehu could not have paid tribute. It 
could not have been one year later, for then Ahab was not in alliance with, 
but was fighting against, Ben-hadad, and the year after that he died. 

Schrader dates the battle of Karkar in the 6th year of Shalmaneser, B.C. 854 
(Assyrian dates), i.e. B.C. 905. He contrasts this with Ussher's date for the 
reign of Ahab, B.C. 918-897, but this should be 925-904, when it is seen to be in 
perfect agreement. 

Schrader dates the payment of tribute by Jehu in the 18th year of Shal- 
maneser, b.c. 842 (Assyrian dates), i.e. b.c. 893. He contrasts this with 
Ussher's date for the reign of Jehu, B.C. 884-856, but this should be 893-865, 
when, again, it is seen to be in perfect agreement. Here, as everywhere, 
the Chronology of the Assyrian Inscriptions, when rightly interpreted, is in 
exact agreement with that of the Old Testament (see Vol. II, Chronological 
Tables) . 

II. Tiglath-pileser III (b.c. 745-727) is called Tiglath-pileser IV by the 
most recent writers, as e.g. by C. H. W. Johns, in Ancient Assyria, published 
1912. It will be noticed that from the year B.C. 783 onward the Assyrian 



200 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



dates and those of Willis J. Beecher coincide, the gap or blank of 51 years 
extending over the period B.C. 834 to 783, and affecting only those dates 
which lie before these years. 

Tiglath-pileser III (IV) was a military upstart, a usurper. He probably 
owed his elevation to the throne of Assyria to a discontented army. We 
know nothing of his origin, but he never lays claim to royal descent. Later 
on, when he came to the throne of Babylon, he was known as Pulu or Poros. 
He has been identified by George Smith and Schrader with Pul. Pil-Eser 
is his Assyrian name, the termination Eser being merely a title occurring in 
many Assyrian names, like Shalmaneser, Esar-haddon, etc. Pul or Pulu 
is his Babylonian name. It is found also in Scripture (2 Kings 15 19 , 1 Chron. 
5 6 - 26 ). Porus is the Greek form of the name found in Ptolemy's Canon. 
According to the cuneiform Inscriptions, Tiglath-pileser III (IV) or Pul, 
conquered Chinzer, King of Babylon, B.C. 731 and died B.C. 727. According 
to Ptolemy's Canon, Porus succeeded Chinzer, and began to reign in Babylon 
in 731 and died in 727. Tiglath-pileser III (IV), Pul, Pulu, and Porus have, 
therefore, been identified as one and the same person. 

He built himself a palace at Calah, the modern Nimrud, on the ruins 
of an old palace of Shalmaneser II (III). Many years later Esar-haddon, 
a King of another dynasty, used the marble slabs of Tiglath-pileser III (IV) 
for a palace of his own, turning their faces to the wall and cutting his own 
inscriptions on their backs. 

Hence, the chronological annals of Tiglath-pileser III (IV) are lost, and 
the only Inscriptions of his that we have left are some mutilated fragments, 
the date of which it is impossible to determine. Mr. George Smith says, 
the dates given for the reign of Tiglath-pileser III (IV) are only approximate 
calculations, and future discoveries may alter them considerably. 

It is very important to remember this, as the dates attributed to some 
of the expeditions of Tiglath-pileser III (IV) do not agree with the dates 
given in the Old Testament, unless we assume that they were expeditions 
undertaken by him when he was acting as the General of Ashur-dan III 
(773-754) or Ashur-nirari (754-745) before he seized and mounted the throne 
himself, B.C. 745. 

The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (IV) like those of most Assyrian 
Monarchs are of two kinds. 

(1) Annalistic Inscriptions giving details of dated events arranged in 
chronological order and written down year by year according to the individual 
years of the King's reign. 

(2) Summarising triumphal Inscriptions giving a general review of all 
that has happened during an extended period of time, in which the facts 
are grouped, not chronologically, but geographically, or in the order of their 
importance, or on some other principle. 

Tiglath-pileser III (IV) mentions (1) Azariah of Judah ( = Uzziah, 806- 
755) as a great military power to whom certain cities turned when they re volted 
from Assyria ; (2) Menahem of Israel (768-758) as one who paid tribute to 
him ; (3) Rezin of Damascus and Pekah of Israel (755-735, dethroned 736) 
as defeated and deposed by him ; (4) Yauhazi or Joachaz (Ahaz, 739-723) 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



201 



as submitting to his dominion and paying tribute ; and (5) Hoshea (736-719, 
King of Israel 727-719) as set up by him, not as King but as governor, as 
Gedaliah was set up later on by Nebuzaradan for Nebuchadnezzar. Thus, 
altogether no fewer than five Kings of Judah and Israel are mentioned by 
Tiglath-pileser III (IV) in those of his Inscriptions which have a bearing 
on the Chronology of the Old Testament. 
These Inscriptions are as follows : — 

1. Rawlinson's Cuneiform Inscriptions, vol. iii, p. 9, No. 2, date unknown ; 
George Smith says its probable date is B.C. 738. 

This is an Inscription on a fragment of a marble slab used by Tiglath- 
pileser III (IV) in his central (S.E.) palace at Calah (Nimrud). It was 
subsequently transported by Esar-haddon and used by him in his S.W. palace 
at Calah (Nimrud). It contains this passage (Schrader i, 210 ; George Smith, 
Assyrian Eponym Canon, p. 117). :— 

" In the course of my campaign tribute of the Kings .... 

Azrijahu of Judah Asurijahu of Judah (Azariah = Uzziah). 

2. Rawlinson's Cuneiform Inscriptions, vol. iii, p. 9, No. 3, date unknown ; 
George Smith says its probable date is B.C. 738. 

This is an Inscription on another fragment of a marble slab used by 
Tigath-pileser III (IV) in the same way. It contains this passage (Schrader, 
i, 212 ; George Smith, Assyrian Eponym Canon, pp. 117-118). 

" Of Azariah my hand mightily captured . . . Nineteen districts of 
the town Hamath, together with the towns in their circuit, which are 
situated on the sea of the setting sun, which in their faithlessness 
made revolt to Azrijahu (Azariah = Uzziah), I turned into the 
territory of Assyria. My officers, my governors I placed over 
them." 

It will be noted, (1) that this Inscription is undated ; (2) that it does not say 
that Azariah (Uzziah) paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser III (IV), but that Tiglath- 
pileser (received) tribute from certain Kings who had revolted from him and 
turned to Azariah (Uzziah), and that he pulled down and destroyed the cities 
of these Kings. If the Inscription was written as George Smith suggests, 
B.C. 738, the revolt of the Kings was a prior event to the campaign of Tiglath- 
pileser III (IV), and might well have been as long prior as some time before 
B - c - 755* the last year of Uzziah's reign. 

Schrader says : " The Azariah (Uzziah) here mentioned must be a con- 
temporary of Tiglath-pileser III (IV). The date of Uzziah's death according to 
the ordinary Chronology (of the Bible) is 758, while Tiglath-pileser, according 
to the Assyrian fivefold guaranteed Canon, did not ascend the throne till B.C. 
745. There gapes here a chronological discrepancy which refuses to be explained 
away. If the Assyrian Chronology, certified as we have said fivefold, be the 
correct one, the Biblical cannot be correct." 

There is here no discrepancy whatever. The Inscription does not say when 
these 19 Cities revolted to Uzziah, but only when Tilglath-pileser destroyed 
them. It does not say whether he destroyed them before he ascended the 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



throne of Assyria, as General of Ashur-dan III (773-754), or as General of Ashur- 
nirari (754-745), or after he ascended the throne B.C. 745. On the one hand, 
there is no reason why these cities should not have revolted to Uzziah long 
before the campaign of Tiglath-pileser III (IV) ; and on the other, there is 
no reason why Tiglath-pileser III (IV) should not have made his military 
expedition long before he came to the throne of Assyria, B.C. 745, for he exacted 
tribute from Merodach-baladan of Babylon in B.C. 751, six years before he 
came to the throne. And to crown all, this Inscription, like every other 
Inscription of Tiglath-pileser III (IV) yet recovered, is an undated, mutilated 
fragment, the date having been given to it, and not derived from it. All which 
proves that this, like all other " contradictions " in the Old Testament, is 
derived from the " assumptions," and inspired by the animus of the critic. 
Prof. Owen C. Whitehouse thinks the Inscription probably refers to a King 
of the land of Yadi and not to Azariah (Uzziah) of Judah at all. 

3. Rawlinson, Cuneiform Inscriptions, vol. hi, p. 9, No. 3, date unknown ; 
George Smith says its probable date B.C. is 738 (cp. 2 Kings 15 19 ). 

This is an Inscription on the same fragment of the marble slab as the 
Inscription last mentioned, containing the name of Azariah (Uzziah). 

Azariah (Uzziah) is mentioned on lines 2 and 10. Menahem on line 29. 

Here we read (Schrader i, 244 ; George Smith, Assyrian Eponym Canon, 
p. 120) : — 

" The tribute of Kustaspi of Kummuha, Resin of Syria, Menahem of 
Samaria and (here follow the names of 14 other Kings and one 
Queen) I received." Then follow the words, "In my 9th year." 
Judah is not included in the list. Uzziah was King there, and he 
had a standing army of 307,050 men (2 Chron. 26 13 ). 

Schrader and other Assyriologists attribute these Inscriptions to Tiglath- 
pileser, and as the year preceding the 9th year of his reign was the year B.C. 
737, and Menahem died 21 years before, B.C. 758, there is here an apparent 
discrepancy between the interpretation of these fragmentary Inscriptions by 
Assyriologists, and the Chronology of the Old Testament. 

But it is by no means certain that the above Inscriptions do relate to the 
reign of Tiglath-pileser III (IV). Willis J. Beecher thinks they belong to the 
8th year of Ashur-dan III (b.c. 773-754), the year B.C. 765, when Tiglath- 
pileser III (IV), some 20 years before he seized the throne, was acting as 
General of the army of Ashur-dan. The subject of the Inscription is an 
expedition to Hamath, 19 districts of which had revolted to Azariah (Uzziah), 
and in that very year, the 8th year of Ashur-dan III, the year B.C. 765, the 
Assyrian Eponym Canon mentions the fact that there was an expedition to 
Hadrach. 

The identification of these Inscriptions as belonging to Tiglath-pileser 
may be granted, but it must be remembered that it is only a " conjecture," 
not a directly attested fact. George Smith speaks of " the deplorable state 
in which the annals of Tiglath-pileser III (IV) are found." He says, " It is very 
difficult to arrange them in their chronological order," " the dates assigned 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 203 



to them are only approximate calculations," and " future discoveries may 
alter them considerably." 

The process by which Schrader dates the payment of tribute by Menahem 
to Tiglath-pileser in the year B.C. 738 is as follows : — 

There is nothing in the Inscription itself to yield this date. It is only an 
inference from a study of the Assyrian Eponym Canon. From this Schrader 
says certain things may be " presumed," and certain other things must be 
" assumed," but " whether Menahem of Samaria was among the Princes who 
rendered homage in the 3rd year of Tiglath-pileser III, which he identifies 
with the year B.C. 738, cannot be determined with certainty. Meanwhile the 
above conjecture would be justified if G. Smith had really, on a basis of 
palseographic facts, connected the plate Layard 45 with the plate Rawlinson, 
vol. hi, p. 9, No. 1." 

Since G. Smith himself says the dates in question are only " approximate 
calculations," and that " future discoveries may alter them considerably," and 
since Willis J. Beecher finds equal support in the Assyrian Eponym Canon for 
his conjecture that the payment of tribute by Menahem belongs to the 8th 
year of Ashur-dan, the year B.C. 765, when Tiglath-pileser was perhaps acting 
as his General, we may allow the matter to remain where it is. One conjecture 
disagrees with the Chronology of the Old Testament. Another conjecture 
agrees with it. Either conjecture meets all the facts contained in the Assyrian 
Inscriptions, and these Inscriptions contain no fact which contradicts the facts 
of the Old Testament. 

4. Rawlinson's Cuneiform Inscriptions, vol. iii, p. 10, No. 2. Probable 
date B.C. 740 to 730. 

This is a summarising or triumphal Inscription by Tiglath-pileser III (IV), 
on a fragment of one of the marble slabs from his palace at Nimrud. 

It reads as follows (Schrader i, 246 ; G. Smith, Assyrian Eponym Canon, 
P- I 23). 

" The cities Gil(ead), Abel (Beth-maacha ?) . . . which is the boundary 
of the land of Beth-omri (Samaria) I turned in its entire extent into 
the territory of Assyria. I set my Officers and Viceroys over it 
(cp. 2 Kings 15 29 , 16 9 ~ 16 , 1 Chron. 5 6 ' 26 , Isaiah 7 1 -9 1 ). 

The land of Beth-omri (Samaria) . . . the goods of its people and their 
furniture I sent to Assyria. Pekaha (Pekah) their King . . . and 
Asui (Hoshea) I appointed over them . . . their tribute of them I 
received." 

(Cp. 2 Kings 17 1 , but this refers only to Hoshea's appointment as Governor 
under the King of Assyria like that of Gedaliah (2 Kings 25 2 3 ) under the King 
of Babylon, not to the first year of his reign as King, which was several years 
later). 

The date attributed to this Inscription by the Assyriologists is B.C. 740 to 
730, which agrees perfectly with the Biblical date of the deposition of Pekah, 
B.C. 736, and his being slain by Hoshea the following year, B.C. 735, or as it is 



204 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



called in 2 Kings 15 30 the 20th year of Jotham, though Jotham had been dead 
4 years, and this was really the 4th year of the reign of Ahaz, " the Holy 
Ghost choosing rather to reckon by holy Jotham in his grave than by wicked 
Ahaz alive " (Dr. John Lightfoot). 

Schrader translates inaccurately, " Pekah their King I slew." There is 
nothing in the Original to correspond with this rendering. The Assyrian 
text reads " Pa-ka-ha sarra-su-nu . . . du . . . ma." " Pekah their King . . . ed." 
There is no " I " at all in it. And there is no " kill " or " slay " in it, only the 
termination of some verb unknown indicating a past tense -ed. All the rest 
is conjecture, read into the text by Schrader (may we not add), in order to 
manufacture a contradiction to the Text of the Old Testament, which tells us 
that Pekah was slain a year later by Hoshea ? It might just as well be con- 
jectured to have been " Pekah their King escaped," or " Pekah their King 

1 defeated," or " Pekah their King I dethroned," or " Pekah their King I 
imprisoned." 

From 2 Kings 1525-27 we i earn tna t Pekah slew Pekahiah and reigned 
from the 52nd year of Uzziah, B.C. 755, for 20 years (inclusive reckoning) to 
B.C. 736. 

From the above Inscription of Tiglath-pileser III (IV) we learn that about 
that time he was removed and Hoshea appointed as governor in his place. 
And from 2 Kings 15 30 we learn that in the following year, B.C. 735, he was 
slain by Hoshea, 

5. Layard's Inscription, p. 66 ; Smith's Assyrian Eponym Canon, p. 124. 
Probable date, according to George Smith, B.C. 734-730. 

This is a tiny fragment of an Inscription of Tiglath-Pileser, which tells 
us nothing more than we have already learned from the previous Inscription. 
It reads " Samaria alone I left. Pekah their King. ..." 

6. Rawlinson's Cuneiform Inscriptions, vol. ii, p. 67. Probable date, 
according to George Smith, B.C. 732. (Schrader i, 249 ; Smith, Assyrian 
Eponym Canon, p. 124). 

This is a summarising triumphal Inscription of Tiglath-pileser III (IV), 
embracing the events which belonged to the period " from the beginning of 
my rule (sarrutu) to the 17th year of my reign (palu), i.e. from B.C. 745, or 
perhaps earlier, to B.C. 728. It records the fact that Tiglath-pileser III (IV) 
received tribute from a very large number of Kings, amongst which we find 
the name of Yauhazi of Judah (—Ahaz, B.C. 738-723), (cp. 2 Kings 16 8 , 

2 Chron. 28, Is. 7 1 ~9 1 ). 

This beginning of rule (sarruti) is in other cases expressly distinguished in 
the Inscriptions from the first year of the King's reign. The year in which 
a new monarch ascended the throne was reckoned, not to the new monarch, but 
to his predecessor. Any events which happened during that portion of the 
calendar year which followed the accession of the new monarch were described 
as happening in " the beginning of his rule " — the following year being 
reckoned the " first year" of his reign (Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions and 
the Old Testament, vol. ii, p. 94), cp. Jer. 26 1 , 27 \ 28 \ 49 3 4 . 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



205 



III. Shalmaneser IV (V) (727-722). 

No Monuments have been found bearing Inscriptions by this monarch. 
Some scholars think he may have left some, but that they were destroyed 
by his successor Sargon II, who was a usurper and the founder of a new 
dynasty. Other scholars have conjectured that Shalmaneser IV (V) and 
Sargon II are one and the same person. 

IV. Sargon II (b.c. 722-705). 

Sargon II, the successor of Shalmaneser IV (V), was a mighty warrior. 
It is generally supposed that he was a usurper, who may have been concerned 
in a revolution resulting in the overthrow of his predecessor. He gives no 
genealogy of himself, but he claims royal descent from 350 royal predecessors. 
If this claim be true his revolution may have been a counterstroke leading to a 
reversion of the crown to some collateral branch of the older dynasty of Ashur- 
dan III, which was overthrown some 23 years before by Tiglath-pileser III 
(IV) B.C. 745. 

Sargon II was the first King of Assyria to come into actual conflict w r ith 
Egypt, which he defeated at the famous battle of Raphia, near the frontier 
of Egypt, not immediately, but soon, after the capture of Samaria. Shabaka 
or Seveh, the " So, King of Egypt," of 2 Kings 17 4 , paid tribute to Sargon II, 
and it is quite possible that Sargon II went up the Nile and partly destroyed 
the Ethiopian No-Amon or Thebes referred to in Nahum 3 8 , in fulfilment of 
Isa. 20 1 6 , as his great grandson, Ashur-bani-pal, destroyed it again, twice 
over, three generations later. 

But in spite of the vast resources of the mighty empire of this powerful 
ruler, his magnificent achievements and his glorious conquests were all 
forgotten. Sic transit gloria mundi. There was no reference to him in classic 
literature. There was just the incidental mention of his name in Isaiah 20 1 , 
the unsupported witness of one single verse of Scripture, and that was all 
that was known of him. Critics and scholars doubted whether there ever 
was such a " King of Assyria " who sent his Tartan against Ashdod and 
took it, just as to-day, there are scholars and critics of very considerable 
reputation who doubt whether there ever was such a person as Belshazzar, the 
King of the Chaldeans, or Darius the Mede, who took the Kingdom from him. 

For 25 Centuries Isaiah was the sole witness to the existence of Sargon II. 
To-day, through the corroboration of the Monumental Inscriptions, he is 
known to have been Assyria's great master mind, the Emperor of the then 
known world. 

Sargon II's reign of 17 years (722-705) was one long series of military 
expeditions. He conquered Samaria, Elam, Babylon, Hamath, Egypt, 
Armenia, Ashdod, Ethiopia, Babylon (a second time) and Cyprus, together 
with a host of smaller states, transporting the inhabitants of one conquered 
territory to another. The most noteworthy of his conquests were : — 

bx. 722. His accession year — His first capture of Samaria, upon which 
he imposed tribute, but which soon afterwards rebelled 
again. (Other documents place his accession two years 
later, in the year 720.) 



206 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



B.C. 721. His first year — His conquest of Merodach-baladan of Babylon. 

B.C. 720. His second year — His conquest of Shabaka = " So, King of 
Egypt," at Raphia. 
(Other documents make this his accession year, so that 
his first year may be either 722, 721, 720 or 719, according 
to the documental authority followed, and the method 
of reckoning employed). 

B.C. 711. His nth year — Conquest of Azuri, King of Ashdod. This 
is the event referred to in Isaiah 20. It is very fully 
described by Sargon II, in his great summarising triumphal 
Inscription at Khorsabad. 

B.C. 710. His 12th year — Conquest of Merodach-baladan of Babylon, 
whom he dethroned, reigning there himself for five years 
as King of Babylon (710-705). Ptolemy's Canon gives 
the name Arcean as King of Babylon for these five years, 
B.C. 710-705. 

Like all great warriors and world conquerors, Sargon was a great builder. 
He built a palace for himself, and called the place after his own name, 
Dur-Sharrukin or Dur-Sargon, now Khorsabad, or Northern Nineveh. All 
the more important Monuments of Sargon II, were obtained from Khorsabad 
by M. Botta, the French explorer, who sent them to the Louvre. 

Sargon II also restored the palace of Ashur-nasir-pal (b.c 936-911), built 
some 200 years earlier at Calah, the modern Nimrud. He repaired the walls 
of Nineveh proper, the modern Kouyunjik, and made it the first city in the 
Empire. 

The Inscriptions of Sargon II are for the most part well preserved. They 
include, 

1. Sargon ILs Annals, which give detailed accounts of the events of 

each year of his reign. 

2. The great summarising triumphal Inscription at Khorsabad. 

3. The Bull Inscription at Khorsabad. 

4. A triumphal Inscription on a Stele of Sargon II which he sent to 

Cyprus, which was discovered on the site of ancient Citium, and 
which is now preserved in the British Museum. 

5. A clay cylinder Inscription. 

6. Sundry Inscriptions on pavements, slabs,, bricks, vases, etc. 

Of these, seven have some bearing on the Chronology of the Old Testament. 
They are as follows : — 

1. Botta, 145, I. (Smith, Assyrian Eponym Canon, Extract 21, p. 125 ; 
Schrader i, p. 263). 

This is a short passage from Sargon II's great triumphal Inscription at 
Khorsabad, dated by George Smith B.C. 722. It is in a very mutilated 
condition but contains the following passages : — 

". . . . Samaria .... I carried off 50 chariots, my royal portion .... 
.... tribute the same as that of the Assyrians I fixed upon them." 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



2. Fastes of Oppert, lines 23 to 25 ; Smith's Assyrian Eponym Canon, 
Extract, 22, p. 125 ; Schrader i, p. 265. 

This is a passage from Sargon ITs Annals, dated by Smith B.C. 722 (?). 
It appears to refer to the same event as the foregoing Inscription, viz. the 
first capture of Samaria by Sargon in 722, i.e. in the 3rd year of Hezekiah, 
and three years before its final fall. It reads as follows : — 

" Samaria I besieged, I captured, 27,290 people dwelling in the midst 
of it I carried captive, 50 chariots from among them I selected, and 
the rest of them I distributed. My general over them I appointed, 
and the taxes of the former King I fixed on them " (cp. 2 Kings 

17 13 ). 

These two extracts appear to refer to events that took place prior to the 
siege of Samaria by Shalmaneser IV (V), referred to in 2 Kings 17 5 , and Sargon 
appears to be acting as the General of Shalmaneser IV (V). 

3. Annals of Sargon, lines 36-57 ; Smith, Assyrian Eponym Canon, 
Extract 23, p. 125. Dated 720. 

This is a mutilated Inscription, respecting the defeat of Sibahki ( = So, 
King of Egypt, 2 Kings 17 4 ), at Raphia. It reads as follows : — 

" In my second year Damascus, Samaria 

Sibahki to his aid, with him to make battle 

and war, to my presence came. In the name of Assur my lord their 
overthrow I struck, and Sibahki the ruler, who had slight courage, 
fled away alone and got off. 

" Hanun in hand I captured, and his family to my city Assur I sent. 

" Raphia I pulled down, destroyed, in the fire I burned, 20,033 people 
and their abundant goods I carried captive." 

4. Fastes of Oppert, lines 25 and 26 ; Smith, Assyrian Eponym Canon, 
Extract 24, p. 126 ; Schrader ii, p. 87. Botta, 145, 2, 1-3. 

This is an extract from Sargon ITs summarising triumphal Inscription 
at Khorsabad. It also refers to the Battle of Raphia. It is dated by Smith 
B.C. 720, and reads as follows : — 

" Hanun, King of Gaza, with Sibahe, General of Egypt, in Raphia, to 
make battle and war, to my presence came. Their overthrow I 
struck. Sibahe the attack of my soldiers avoided, fled away, and his 
place could not be seen. Hanun, King of Gaza, in hand I captured." 

5. Rawlinson's Cuneiform Inscriptions, vol. i, p. 36, line 20 ; Smith, 
Assyrian Eponym Canon, Extract 29, p. 129 ; Schrader i, p. 269. 

This is from Sargon ITs clay cylinder Inscription. It is dated by Smith 
B.C. 715, and reads as follows : — 

" Sargon (?) Conqueror of the Tamudu (an Arabian tribe), Ibadidi, 
Marsimani, and Hayapa, who the rest of them enslaved, and 
caused them to be placed in the land of Beth-omri (Samaria)." 



208 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



6. Smith, Assyrian Eponym Canon, Extract 30, p. 129. 

This is the great Ashdod Inscription (cp. Isa. 20) contained in Sargon ILs 
Kouyunjik Cylinder and Khorsabad Inscription. 

It is distinctly dated here " In the 9th year of my reign," i.e. B.C. 713 
if he dates his accession from B.C. 722, or B.C. 711 if he dates his accession 
from B.C. 720. In his Annals he gives this expedition under the nth year 
of his reign. 

This shows that there were two ways of reckoning the accession of Sargon. 
His accession year was 722. His first year 721. He had another accession 
year 720, and his royal Eponym Year was 719. 

Similarly Shalmaneser II (III) ascended the throne B.C. 860 (Assyrian 
dates) = B.C. 911. His first year was B.C. 859 (Assyrian dates) = B.C. 910 
and his royal Eponym Year B.C. 858 (Assyrian dates) — B.C. 909. 

From the time of Tiglath-pileser III (IV) (745-727) onward, says Schrader 
(ii, p. 168 note), the year of the King's accession is also reckoned as the first 
year of the new series of Eponyms. The Canons vary in their mode of 
reckoning the first year of the King. Sometimes it is his accession year, 
sometimes the year after his accession, sometimes the year after that. 

George Smith says (Assyrian Eponym Canon, p. 21) the general practice 
was to count the regnal years from the first New Year's Day after the King's 
accession, and to call the period between the accession and the first New Year's 
Day, " the beginning of the reign." Nevertheless, there are cases in which 
the year of accession is considered as the first year, thus giving two reckonings. 
Thus : — 

Shalmaneser II (Ill's) year of Accession = 860. His 1st year 860 or S59 
Tiglath-pileser III (IV's) ,, —745 >, 745 or 744 

Sargon II's . . . . ,, =722 ,, 722 or 721 

Sennacherib's .. .. ,, = 705 » 705 or 704 

Nebuchadnezzar's . . ,, =605 ,, 605 or 604 

Sargon's Ashdod Inscription, as taken from the Kouyunjik Cylinder, 
is as follows : — 

" In my 9th year, to the land beside the great sea, to Philistia and Ashdod 
I went. 

" Azuri of Ashdod hardened his heart not to bring tribute, and sent to 

the Kings round him, enemies of Assyria, and did evil. Over 

the people round him I broke 

" Ahimite .... his brother I raised and appointed over his Kingdom 

before his face. Taxes and tribute to Assyria like those of the 

Kings round him I appointed over him. 
" But the people revolted against their King .... and drove 

him away .... and appointed Yavan, not heir to the throne, to the 

Kingdom over them. . . . 
" I, Sargon, crossed, the Tigris and the Euphrates .... Yavan heard of 

my expedition .... and fled away . . . . to the border of 

Egypt, the shore of the river, the boundary of Meroe." 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



7. Botta, 149, 6 ; Schrader, ii, p. 89. 
This is another account of the Ashdod Expedition from Sargon's Annals, 
dated the eleventh year of his reign instead of the ninth, as in the 
preceding Inscription. It reads as follows : — 

" Azuri, King of Ashdod, hardened his heart not to pay tribute, and sent 
to the Princes of his neighbourhood, demands to revolt from Assyria. 
Accordingly, I wreaked vengeance, and changed his government over 
the inhabitants of his district. Achimite, his own brother, I 
appointed to be governor over them. The Hittites, who thought to 
revolt, despised his rule, raised Yaman, who had no claim, to the 
throne, and who, like the former, refused recognition of authority 
over them. In the rage of my heart, my whole army I gathered 
not, did not even collect my baggage ; with my chief warriors, 
who did not retreat from the victorious track of my arms, I advanced 
to Ashdod. The above Yaman, as he of the approach of my 
expedition heard from far, fled to a district of Egypt, which is 
situated on the frontier of Milukka (Meroe or Ethiopia) ; not a 
trace of him was seen. Ashdod Gimt-Ashdudim, I besieged, I 
captured ; his goods, his wife, his sons, his daughters, the treasures, 
possessions, valuables of his palace, together with the inhabitants 
of his land, I destined for capture. Those towns I restored again. 
The inhabitants of the countries which my hands had seized .... 
in the East I settled there. I treated them like unto the Assyrians. 
They tendered obedience. . . . The King of Milukka (Meroe or 
Ethiopia) cast Yaman into iron chains, and caused him to take his 
distant way to Assyria, and appear before me." 

This is the background that lies behind the words of Is. 20 1 " 6 : "In the 
year that Tartan came unto Ashdod (when Sargon the King of Assyria sent 
him), and fought against Ashdod and took it : at the same time spake the 
Lord by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from 
off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking 
naked and barefoot." 

This was the sign upon Egypt and Ethiopia that so should the King of 
Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, 
naked and barefoot, to the shame of Egypt and Ethiopia. 

The enterprise of Sargon against Ashdod was connected with an enterprise 
against the great Western Power on the Nile. After the fall of Ashdod, Sargon 
either went to Thebes (the No- Anion of Nahum 3 8 , A.V. margin) and partly 
destroyed it, as his great grandson Ashur-bani-pal did more completely, twice 
over, about half a century later, or else Egypt and Ethiopia surrendered to 
Sargon without fighting, for they betrayed and gave up Yaman the King of 
Ashdod, who had fled to them for refuge, and sued for peace. 

If the dates of Sargon's reign are rightly computed by the interpreters 
of the Assyrian Inscriptions, the year that Sargon II took Ashdod was his nth 
year — the year B.C. 711 — the 14th year of Hezekiah, the year of the destruction 
of the 185,000 of the host of Sennacherib, the year of the sickness of Hezekiah, 
o 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



and the year of the embassy of Merodach-baladan of Babylon (2 Kings 18-20, 
Is. 36-39)- 

There is no reason why Sargon II should not have made his son Sennacherib 
his Tartan or Commander-in-Chief, and associated him with himself on the 
throne of Assyria in B.C. 711, six years before Sargon II died, and Sennacherib 
became sole King of Assyria. The word Tartan occurs only in 2 Kings 18 17 
and Is. 20 \ It may be the title of Sennacherib as Crown Prince and Co-Regent 
with his father Sargon, and Commander-in-Chief of the army. The Ashdod 
expedition, the Lachish payment of tribute, the blasphemous letter episode, 
and the destruction of the host of Sennacherib all belong to one and the same 
year, the 14th year of Hezekiah, the year B.C. 711. We have no right to 
assume that Sennacherib undertook none of his military expeditions before 
he ascended the throne in B.C. 705. He may very well have been associated 
with his father in the throne and Commander-in-Chief of the army in the year 
711, for we know that he was " Crown Prince and Viceroy in Assyria during 
the last few years of Sargon's reign " (C. H. W. John's Ancient Assyria), just 
as Nebuchadnezzar was Co-Regent with, and Commander-in-Chief of, the army 
of his father Nabopolassar, and just as Belshazzar was Co-Regent with, and 
Commander-in-Chief of, the army of his, father Nabonidus. 

V. Sennacherib (b.c. 705-681). 

Sennacherib was the son of Sargon II (722-705), and the father of Esar- 
haddon (681-668). He was a typical Assyrian monarch. His whole life was 
taken up in warlike expeditions, conquering and crushing and subduing other 
nations, and taking tribute from them, and in the erection of great palaces and 
other buildings. He was nearly always at war with Babylon. He defeated 
Merodach-baladan, and appointed Belibus as his Viceroy there.. Later on he 
conquered Merodach-baladan again, and appointed his own son, Ashur-nadin- 
shum, King of Babylon, and finally he was himself King of Babylon for 8 years, 
a period which is reckoned as an interregnum in Ptolemy's Canon. 

He conquered Armenia, Media, Sidon, Tyre, Edom, Ashdod, Ashkelon, 
Libnah and Lachish. He defeated Egypt at Eltakeh between Ekron and 
Timnath, and took the seal of So, King of Egypt, which was discovered in 
his palace at Kouyunjik, a building extending over 8 acres of ground. He 
restored another palace at Neby Yunas (the prophet Jonah), also at Nineveh. 
He was the first Assyrian monarch to make Nineveh the seat of government. 

His Inscriptions are on clay cylinders, marble slabs, and colossal bulls. 
We have bas-reliefs of his wars and building operations, terra cotta bowls, 
bricks, alabaster plate, and a crystal throne. There is also an Inscription of 
his on the Rock at Bavian, to the north of Nineveh, and another at Nahr-el- 
Kelb, on the coast of Syria, which he made by the side of an Inscription 
placed there by Rameses the Great 600 years before. 

Those which refer to the Chronology of the Old Testament may be tabulated 
as follows : — 

1. Rawlinson's Cuneiform Inscriptions, vol. i, 43, 15 ; The Inscription 
of Constantinople of Schrader i, 279 ; The Memorial Tablet, lines 13 to 15, of 
Smith's Assyrian Eponym Canon. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 211 

Here we read : — " From Elulaeus King of Sidon I took his Kingdom, Ethobal 
I raised to his throne and imposed on him the tribute of my rule ; the extensive 
territory of the land Judah, Hezekiah its King, I compelled to obedience." 

2. Rawlinson's Cuneiform Inscriptions, vol. i, 7, No. J ; Schrader i, 280 ; 
The Lachish Slab, No. 28, in the Assyrian Saloon of the British Museum. 

This is a bas-relief of Sennacherib sitting on a throne amid the vines and fig- 
trees outside the city of Lachish, receiving tribute. It bears the Inscription : 
" Sennacherib, King of hosts, King of Assyria, seated himself upon an exalted 
throne and received the spoil of the city Lachish." 

3. Rawlinson's Cuneiform Inscriptions, vol. i, 37-42. The Taylor six-sided 
clay Cylinder, Schrader i, 280. 

This was executed in the Eponymy of Bel-emur-ani, B.C. 691, and contains 
an account of Sennacherib's eight military expeditions. 

The Inscription on the Bellino Cylinder, executed B.C. 702, contains an 
account of two of these campaigns. The Inscription on the Colossal Bulls of 
Kouyunjik, executed B.C. 700, contains a parallel account of the third of these 
campaigns. The Inscription on the C. Cylinder (George Smith's Assyrian 
Discoveries, p. 296), executed B.C. 697, contains an account of four of these 
campaigns. 

These parallel accounts add little to the matter contained in the celebrated 
Taylor Cylinder. 

The most important of all the Inscriptions of Sennacherib is the account 
he gives of his third campaign. 

Unfortunately, none of the events recorded by Sennacherib are dated. 
Earlier monarchs, like Shalmaneser II (III) and Tiglath-pileser III (IV) 
record the events which happened " in the first, second, third, etc., year of my 
reign." The later monarchs, Sennacherib, Esar-haddon, and Ashur-bani-pal, do 
not give dates. They record only the events which happened " in my first, 
second, third, etc., military campaign." 

This third campaign of Sennacherib embraces : — 

1. An expedition to the towns of Phoenicia and Philistia. 

2. An expedition against Zedekiah of Ashkelon. 

3. An expedition against the Ekronites, whose King, Padi, had been 

deposed and sent as a prisoner to Hezekiah because he was loyal 
to Assyria. Hezekiah gave him up, and Sennacherib restored him. 
While Sennacherib was engaged here he was attacked by the Egyptians 
and Ethiopians, whom he defeated at Eltakeh, between Ekron and 
Timnath. 

4. An expedition against Hezekiah, on the date of which Schrader founds 

his whole case for the untrustworthiness of the Biblical Chronology, 
and the necessity of substituting for it the Chronology of the Monu- 
ments. 

The account of Sennacherib's third campaign is a long one, but it must 
be given in full : — 



212 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



" As for Hezekiah of Judah, who had not submitted to my yoke, 46 of his 
strong cities, together with innumerable fortresses and small towns dependent 
on them, by overthrowing the walls and open attack, by battle engines and 
battering-rams I besieged, I captured ; I brought out from the midst of them 
and counted as a spoil 200,150 persons, great and small, male and female, 
besides mules, asses, camels, oxen, and sheep without number. Hezekiah 
himself I shut up like a bird in a cage in Jerusalem, his royal city. I built a 
line of forts against him, and I kept back his heel from going forth out of the 
great gate of his city. I cut off his cities which I had spoiled from the midst 
of his land, and gave them to Metinti, King of Ashdod ; Padi, King of Ekron ; 
and Zil-baal, King of Gaza, and I made his country small. In addition to 
their former tribute and yearly gifts, I added other tribute and the homage 
due to my majesty, and I laid it upon them. The fear of the greatness of my 
majesty overwhelmed him, even Hezekiah, and he sent after me to Nineveh, 
my royal city, by way of gift and tribute, the Arabs and his body guard whom 
he had brought for the defence of Jerusalem, his royal city, and had furnished 
with pay, along with 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of pure silver, carbuncles, 
and other precious stones, a couch of ivory, thrones of ivory, an elephant's 
hide, an elephant's tusk, rare woods of all kinds, a vast treasure, as well as 
the eunuchs of his palace, and dancing men and dancing women, and he sent 
his ambassador to pay homage (or tribute) and to make submission." 

It will be seen from this extract that Sennacherib claims a victory, but he 
did not take Jerusalem, though he sent an army against it. He is evidently 
trying to cover up a fact which looks like virtual defeat. 

When this passage is compared with 2 Kings i8 13 -i9 37 , 2 Chron. 32, Is. 
36-37, 38 \ 39 1 , chronological difficulties at once arise, for Sennacherib began 
to reign B.C. 705, and this was his third campaign. Therefore, says Schrader, 
" for this event the only possible date is B.C. 701. But Hezekiah died B.C. 700, 
and his fourteenth year in which these events took place, according to the 
Chronology of the Old Testament (2 Kings 18 2 13 , 20 1_6 ) was the year B.C. 711. 

" We see," says Schrader, " that one of the two systems must be abandoned. 
We cannot doubt against which of the two sentence must be passed. Our 
verdict must be pronounced against the Scriptural system. It must be 
abandoned in the presence of the corresponding statements of the Monuments 
and the Eponym Canon. In the Monuments we possess the additional advan- 
tage of gaining access to documents which have not, like Scriptural writings, 
notoriously been subjected in the course of Centuries to numerous alterations. 
We must acknowledge the artificial character of the Biblical Chronology.'' 

Many attempts have been made to explain this discrepancy. Rawlinson 
suggests that there were two campaigns by Sennacherib. Kleinert suggests 
that the redactor put " Sennacherib " by mistake for " Sargon." Fausset 
thinks the case is hopeless and we must admit a copyist's error in putting 
the 14th instead of the 27th year of Hezekiah. Budge adopts Rawlinson's 
theory of an earlier campaign ending in victory as described by Sennacherib, 
and a later campaign, about two years after, ending in the destruction of the 
185,000 men of Sennacherib's army by the angel of the Lord, who smote them 
" perhaps with a plague." George Smith thinks we should read 24th instead 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 213 



of 14th, and Samuel Kinns, in Graven on the Rock, says there is some error 
of transcription in 2 Kings 18 13 . 

But there is really no need for any of these expedients. The whole difficulty 
arises from supposing that Sennacherib could not have undertaken a warlike 
operation of this kind during his father Sargon's lifetime — a pure assumption, 
wholly gratuitous, and capable of being satisfactorily disproved. Hezekiah's 
14th year is the year B.C. 711. There is some doubt as to Sargon's first year, 
but his accession year was either B.C. 722 or 720. Hezekiah's 14th year was 
Sargon's nth, and Sargon reigned 17 years. Six years, therefore, before he 
came to the throne, in B.C. 705, Sennacherib undertook this expedition, and 
received the submission of Hezekiah with the silver and the gold in the name 
of the King of Assyria. 

George Smith says, " Sennacherib held some official rank during his father's 
reign, and it is quite possible that he commanded the expedition in B.C. 711 
as his father's deputy. In the Tablet K 2169, Sennacherib is called " Rabsaki " 
(Rabshakeh) or General, and " great royal son," that is, heir to the throne ; 
and he is said to possess his own scribe. The passage reads : — 

" Tablet of Aia-suzubu-ilih the Scribe of the Rabshakeh, of Sennacherib, 
the great royal son of Sargon, King of Assyria." 

The title, " great royal son," was assumed by Asshur-bani-pal when he 
was associated with his father on the throne. 

Schrader says, " According to the Assyrian Eponym Canon, Sennacherib 
began his reign in the year B.C. 705. Therefore the campaign must have 
fallen subsequent to that year." Why must it ? Why could not Sennacherib 
have conducted it before he came to the throne ? Schrader says, " The 
Inscription does not inform us in the least in which year or years of 
Sennacherib's reign these eight campaigns occurred." But neither does it 
inform us that they occurred in the reign itself, i.e. between B.C. 705 and 681. 

On the contrary, we know from an Inscription on a tablet enclosed in a 
clay envelope, and sent as a letter by Sennacherib to his father — No. 105 in 
Table-case D in the Nineveh Gallery of the British Museum — that Sennacherib 
sent to his father extracts from despatches which he had received concerning 
imperial affairs. 

In the account of his fourth campaign, Sennacherib says : " Merodach- 
baladan, on whom I, in my first military expedition, inflicted a defeat, and 
whose force I had broken in pieces, dreaded the onset of my powerful weapons 
and the shock of my mighty battle." Why may not that first campaign 
have been undertaken by Sennacherib before he came to the throne ? Did 
not Edward the Black Prince prove himself a famous warrior ? Yet he 
never came to the throne of England at all. 

Sargon conquered Merodach-baladan and dethroned him B.C. 710. 
Sennacherib's first campaign was against Merodach-baladan. Why may not 
he have been the Tartan or Commander-in-Chief in the war against Merodach- 
baladan, B.C. 710, five years before he came to the throne, and also in the war 
against Ashdod, in the 14th year of Hezekiah, B.C. 711, six years before he 
came to the throne ? 

Schrader says, " We have no means of directly fixing the date of 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



Sennacherib's third campaign " — the one against Hezekiah. Yet this is the 
very one whose date he declares to be irreconcilable with the Biblical date, 
the 14th year of Hezekiah, B.C. 711 (2 Kings 18 13 ), and what makes it irrecon- 
cilable is not anything in the Monuments, but the assumption that Sennacherib 
could not have conducted a military expedition during Sargons' reign, as we 
know Sargon's Tartan did (Is. 20 1 ), and whether Sennacherib was that 
Tartan or not, we know that he was Crown Prince and Viceroy, or Co-Rex 
with his father Sargon, during the last five years of Sargon's reign. 

Schrader is puzzled by the fact that Merodach-baladan was defeated and 
dethroned by Sargon in B.C. 710, and then again by Sennacherib in 704. He 
asks, " Was this Merodach-baladan, by whom Sennacherib was confronted, 
identical with the Babylonian King of the same name, whom Sargon defeated 
and dethroned, or was he distinct from the above, perhaps his successor and 
son" ? 

The solution of the difficulty is perfectly simple. Quod facit per alium 
facit per se — what one does through another, one may be said to do oneself. 
What Sargon did through his son Sennacherib, he did himself. It was one 
and the same Merodach-baladan, one and the same defeat, by one and the 
the same Sargon in his 12th year, which was Hezekiah's 15th year, B.C. 710, 
through one and the same Sennacherib, in his first campaign, in the beginning 
of his rule, five years before his accession, and six years before the first year 
of his reign. 

This is borne out by Sennacherib's Inscriptions on the Taylor cylinder, 
the Bellino cylinder, and the Memorial Tablet, in each of which he says that 
he conquered Merodach-baladan " ina ris sarruti " (in the beginning of my 
rule), not " ina ris pale-] a " (in the beginning of my reign). 

Prof. Sayce interprets the Biblical Record in another way. He takes 
2 Kings 18 13-16 as referring to the events of the 14th year of Hezekiah, B.C. 711, 
and 2 Kings i8 17 -i9, the destruction of Sennacherib's host, to a later date, 
viz. Sennacherib's 4th year, and Hezekiah's 24th, B.C. 701. The interpre- 
tation is not perhaps positively excluded by the Text of the Old Testament, 
but in view of the words of 2 Kings 20 lm 6> 12 it seems more probable that the 
whole of 2 Kings i8 13 -20 19 belongs to the 14th year of Hezekiah (b.c. 711). 
It is not necessary to decide what the explanation of the difficulty is. It is 
enough to prove that no necessary contradiction between the Old Testament 
and the Monuments has been made out. 

There is no reason why Sennacherib may not have been Co-Regent in the 
field with Sargon, as Nebuchadnezzar was with his father Nabopolassar, and 
Belshazzar with his father Nabonidus. Sennacherib appointed his son 
Ashur-nadin-shum, King of Babylon, and Esar-haddon appointed his two 
sons, the one King of Assyria and the other King of Babylon. The practice 
of appointing a Co-Regent during the King's life was very commonly adopted 
in all the countries of the East. 

Schrader's whole case for the untrustworthiness of the Bible Chronology 
rests, as he himself tells us, upon this discrepancy between the Biblical date 
of Sennacherib's expedition, in the 14th year of Hezekiah, B.C. 711, and the 
Assyrian Monumental date for Sennacherib's accession, B.C. 705. But both 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 215 



these statements are true. There is no discrepancy between them. Schrader's 
attack has failed, and the Bible Chronology stands. 

VI. Esar-haddon (681-668). 

Esar-haddon was the most potent of the Kings of Assyria. He conquered 
Media, Phoenicia, Egypt and Ethiopia, and drove Tirhakah out of Egypt. 
He conquered the sons of Merodach-baladan, and made Babylon directly 
subject to the Assyrian Crown, residing by turns at Nineveh and Babylon 
instead of governing Babylon by Viceroys. 

Esar-haddon was a great builder. He built no new city, but he restored 
many old ones. He rebuilt Babylon, which his father had destroyed, and 
which had lain waste for 10 years. He began to build a great palace for himself 
at Calah, the modern Nimrud, using for this purpose the slabs inscribed and 
used before by Tiglath-pileser III (IV), but it was never finished. He rebuilt 
or restored temples at Nineveh, viz. at Nebi Yunus (Prophet Jonah), at 
Erech, Sippara and Borsippa. 

He abdicated B.C. 668, after proclaiming his son Ashur-bani-pal King of 
Assyria and his son Shamash-shum-ukin King of Babylon. 

The colossal Stele of Esar-haddon at Samaal represents him holding a cord 
attached to rings in the lips of two lesser figures, Tirhakah of Egypt and 
Baal of Tyre. 

His Inscriptions include baked clay, six-sided cylinders, giving the annals 
of his reign and a summary of the same. A black basalt Memorial Stone in 
archaic Babylonian characters, a bas-relief (cut in the rock at Nahr-el-Kelb 
near Berut, in Syria, close to the ancient highway from Egypt to Syria by the 
side of six other similar Assyrian and three Egyptian Inscriptions), cylinders, 
slabs, tablets, etc., giving his name, titles, genealogy and building operations. 
Four of his Inscriptions have a bearing on the subject of Old Testament Chro- 
nology, and the authenticity of the Bible Records so far as they refer to him. 

1. A brick Inscription (I, Rawlinson 48, No. 3 ; Schrader, vol. ii, p. 20). It 
reads as follows : — 

" Esar-haddon, King of Assyria, son of Sennacherib King of Assyria/' 
This agrees with 2 Kings 19 3 7 . 

2. The broken clay cylinder (III, Rawlinson 15, col. 1, 18 foil.) on the defeat 
of his two paricidal brothers who killed their father and fled to Armenia 
(Schrader ii, 17.) It bears the following Inscription : — 

" The terror of the great gods, my lords, overthrew them. They saw and 
dreaded the meeting. Istar the mistress of conflict and battle, who 
loved my priesthood, raised my hands, broke their bow, cleft 
through their battle array ; in their assembly resounded the cry 
'This is our King.' " This corroborates 2 Kings 19 3 7 . 

3. The great cylinder Inscription (I, Rawlinson 47, V, 11-13 ; Schrader 
ii, 39 ; Smith, Assyrian Eponym Canon, Extract 37, p. 139, date B.C. 680). 

" I gathered 22 Princes of the land of Khatti (the Hittites) who dwell by 
the sea, and in the midst of it, all of them I summoned." 



216 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



3A. A supplement to 3. A broken clay cylinder (III, Rawlinson 16, c. V ; 
Schrader ii, 39-41 ; Smith, Assyrian Eponym Canon, Extract 37, p. 139. Prob- 
able date B.C. 680), which gives the names of these 22 Princes. They are as 
follows : — 

1. Baal, King of Tyre. 

2. Manasseh, King of Judah. 

3. Khausgabri, King of Edom. 

4. Mushuri, King of Moab. 

5. Zilbel, King of Gaza. 

6. Mitinti, King of Askelon. 

7. Ikasamu, King of Ekron. 

8. Milkiasap, King of Byblos. 

9. Matanbaal, King of Arados (Arvad). 

10. Abibal, King of Samsimuruna. 

11. Puduil, King of Beth- Amnion. 

12. Ahimelech, King of Ashdod. 

Etc., etc. 

There is a similar list given by his son Ashur-bani-pal in the next reign, in 
which all the names are the same except that Jakinlu takes the place of Matan- 
baal, and Amminadab that of Puduil. 

These Inscriptions prove that Manasseh paid tribute to both Esar-haddon 
and Ashur-bani-pal in accordance with 2 Kings 21 13 14 , and 2 Chron. 33 11-1 9 . 

4. A baked cylinder (V, Rawlinson 45, col. 1, 24 ; Schrader ii, 61 ; Smith, 
Assyrian Eponym Canon, Extract 36, p, 137-8. Probable date, B.C. 680), in 
which Esar-haddon says : " I gathered together all the Kings of the land of 
Khatti (Hittites) and of the sea coast. Another town I caused to be built. 
Esarhaddonstown I called it. The inhabitants of the mountains carried 
away by my bow, and those of the Eastern sea I settled in that spot. My 
Officer the Viceroy I placed over them/' 

This corroborates Ezra 4 2 , in which the adversaries of Judah, who opposed 
Zerubbabel and hindered the rebuilding of the Temple, say that it was 
Esar-haddon who brought them there. 

If the captivity of Manasseh (b.c. 696-641), related in 2 Chron. 33 1X , took 
place in the reign of Esar-haddon (b.c. 681-668), this would explain why he 
was deported by the King of Assyria to Babylon, and not to Nineveh, and 
as Esar-haddon was of a mild, forgiving nature, he would readily forgive and 
restore Manasseh, as he did the son of Merodach-baladan (2 Chron 33 12 - 13 ). 
In that case, there would be at least 28 years in which Manasseh could carry 
out his reformation. If the captivity of Manasseh was due, as Schrader 
suggests, to his being suspected of complicity in the rebellion of Shamash- 
shum-ukin against Ashur-bani-pal, B.C. 648, he may have had to appear before 
Ashur-bani-pal at Babylon, to clear himself of suspicion and to furnish 
guarantees of faithfulness to Ashur-bani-pal ; upon which he would naturally 
be restored (2 Chron. 33 12 - 13 ). In that case, there would be only seven 
years in which Manasseh could carry out his reformation, as he died B.C. 641. 

The most probable conclusion is that of George Smith, which is as follows : 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY 217 



In the days of Ahaz, whose first year was the year B.C. 738, Isaiah prophesied 
and said, " Within 65 years shall Ephraim be broken from being a people " 
(Is. 78). 

The adversaries who hindered the building of the Temple by Zerubbabel, 
were planted in Samaria by Esar-haddon, and some of these were Baby- 
lonians (Ez. 4 2, 9 ). 

Manasseh King of Judah was carried away to Babylon by the King of 
Assyria (probably Esar-haddon), 2 Chron. 33 11 

Esar-haddon gathered all the Kings of the land of the Khatti and of the 
sea coast (Palestine) and settled in that district the inhabitants of the Mountains 
and the Eastern Sea. He summoned to his presence the 22 Kings of the 
land of the Khatti, amongst whom he mentions Manasseh King of Judah 
{Esar-haddon s Inscriptions, Rawlinson i, 45, col. 1, lines 23 and 24 ; i, 47 ; 
v, 11-13 and hi, 16, c.V.) 

Esar-haddon was King of Babylon B.C. 681-668. " Some of the dates of 
Esar-haddon," says George Smith, " are uncertain, but the time of the revolt 
and conquest of Palestine is fairly certain. In B.C. 673 or 672 Esar-haddon 
carried into captivity the remnant of Israel, and sent Manasseh, King of Judah, 
prisoner to Babylon. In the following year, B.C. 671, Manasseh was released." 

Now from B.C. 738 to 673, the year in which Esar-haddon transplanted 
the inhabitants of Samaria into his Eastern provinces and re-peopled Samaria 
with Babylonians, etc., is exactly 65 years, and this occasion, rather than the 
first capture of Samaria by Sargon in B.C. 722, or its final fall in B.C. 719, 
was the one on which Ephraim was " broken from being a people." Thus, 
the Assyrian cuneiform Inscriptions throw a welcome light on a difficult 
verse in Isaiah, and show how his prophecy was fulfilled. 

VII. Ashur-bani-pal (668-626). 

The Inscriptions of Ashur-bani-pal give the history of his reign down to 
the year 640. Then the accounts cease. In accordance with the will of his 
father he became King of Assyria, and his brother Shamash-shum-ukin became 
King of Babylon. 

In 661 he captured and plundered Thebes, the No-Amon of Nahum 3 8 , 
expelled the Ethiopians, and reinstated Psammeticus as King of Egypt under 
Assyrian protection and support. 

In 648 his brother, Shamash-shum-ukin rebelled. He was besieged, and 
burnt himself in his palace, and Ashur-bani-pal ruled Babylon himself as 
King Kandalanu from B.C. 647 to his death in B.C. 626. 

It is almost impossible to say when Nineveh and the Empire of Assyria 
fell. Ashur-bani-pal was the last great monarch. His accounts cease at 
B.C. 640. 

Greek traditions say he lived in ease and indulgence, but we have no 
contemporary records. He was a cultured, leisurely man, interested in 
books and libraries. He left war to his warriors. He was a great builder. 
He created a great library, collecting and copying tens of thousands of 
clay tablets from every possible source, embodying the masterpieces of the 
age, together with works on astronomy, mathematics, grammar, dictionaries, 
deeds, letters, documents and lists of Eponyms. His library was situated 
first at Calah, and afterwards at Nineveh. 



2i8 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



Ashur-bani-pal was probably succeeded by his two sons, Ashur-etil-ilani 
and Sin-shar-ish-kun (Saracos), who may have reigned the rest of the time, 
but there is no record, only traditions. 

Assyria fell some time after 626. The Greek tradition is that Psammeticus 
held Egypt, that Nabopolassar, the King of Assyria's Viceroy at Babylon, 
proclaimed himself King of Babylon, and with the help of Cyaxares the Mede 
took Nineveh B.C. 625, whereupon the Empire of Assyria was divided between 
Psammeticus who took Egypt, Nabopolassar who took Babylon, and Cyaxares 
who took Media. 

C. H. W. Johns says it is difficult to harmonise the accounts that have 
reached us of these times, "and even the exact date of the fall of Nineveh is 
not certain. It is usually set at B.C. 606." 

We shall not, perhaps, be far out if we suppose that Ashur-bani-pal died 
in or about the year B.C. 626, that Nineveh was besieged by Nabopolassar 
of Babylon and Cyaxares the Mede, and fell in B.C. 625, that Ashur-bani-pal' s 
two sons maintained a precarious existence as in some sense Kings of Assyria 
between B.C. 625 and 606, the elder, Ashur-etil-ilani, occupying the throne 
for the first six years (b.c. 625-619) and the younger Sin-shar-ish-kun (Saracos) 
for the remainder of the period (b.c. 619-606), at the end of which we may 
date the final fall and destruction of Nineveh B.C. 606. 

But as George Smith says, in his Assyrian Eponym Canon, " No Assyrian 
date can be fixed with any certainty after the accession of Nabu-pal-uzer, or 
Nabopolassar, at Babylon, in B.C. 626, and this event appears to have been 
closely followed by the death of Ashur-bani-pal, King of Assyria." 

The only Inscription of Ashur-bani-pal that bears upon the events recorded 
in the Old Testament is the Inscription on — 

1. Cylinder C, Ashur-bani-pal (III, Rawlinson 27), its probable date, 
according to George Smith, being b.c. 668. 

This is in a very mutilated condition, but more recently a duplicate of the 
Inscription made upon it has been discovered, numbered — 

ia. Rassam 3, from which we obtain the full text (Schrader ii, 41 ; Smith, 
Assyrian Eponym Canon, Extract 41, p. 143), probable date B.C. 668 : — 

" To Egypt and Ethiopia I directed the march. In the course of my expedition 

1. Baal, King of Tyre. 

2. Manasseh, King of Judah. 

3. Kausgabri, King of Edom. 

4. Musuri, King of Moab. 

5. Zilbel, King of Gaza. 

6. Mitinti, King of Ashkelon, 

7. Ikasamsu, King of Ekron. 

8. Milkiasap, King of Byblos. 

9. Jakinlu, King of Arados. 

10. Abibaal, King of Samsi-muruna. 

11. Amminabad, King of Beth-Ammon 

(and 11 others, making) 
22 Kings of the side of the sea and the middle of the sea, all of them 
tributaries dependent on me, to my presence came and kissed my feet." 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 219 



The payment of tribute by Manasseh is not mentioned in the Bible, but 
the Inscription of Ashur-bani-pal accords very well with what we might expect 
from 2 Kings 21 13 14 and 2 Chron. 33 11-1 9 . 

In Ezra 4 9- 10 we read of the great and noble Asnapper who brought over 
and set in the cities of Samaria, the Dinaites, the Apharsathchites, the 
Tarpelites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Susanchites, the Dehavites and 
the Elamites. 

This Asnapper has not yet been definitely identified. He may have been 
(1) Esar-haddon (cp. Ezra 4 2 ), or (2) a General of Esar-haddon (though no 
General of that name has yet been met with in the Assyrian Inscriptions), or 
(3) most probably Ashur-bani-pal himself. In favour of this is the epithet 
"great and noble " or "great and mighty," and the fact that Ashur-bani-pal 
was the only Assyrian monarch who penetrated into the heart of Elam and 
gained possession of Susa (Schrader ii, p. 65). 

This brings us to the close of the list of the historical Inscriptions of the 
Kings. 

B. The Assyrian Eponym Canon. 

One of the most important chronological documents ever discovered was 
that found by Sir Henry Rawlinson, among the inscribed terra cotta tablets 
which Mr. Layard and other explorers brought from Nineveh — the Assyrian 
Eponym Canon. This consists of a Canon or list of the annual Eponyms. 

The Eponym was an Officer resembling, in some respects, our Lord Mayor. 
He held office for one year, and his name was appropriated to the function of 
denoting the year in which he held office, as one of a continuous series of years 
forming a chronological Era. 

Sir H. Rawlinson distinguished 4 copies of the Canon, all imperfect, which 
he named Canons I, II, III and IV. Since then, other fragments have been 
found belonging to Canon I and some additional copies, also fragmentary, 
which have been named Canons V, VI and VII. 

Canon I is the principal and standard copy. It begins with the Eponymy 
of Vul-nirari or Ramman-nirari, B.C. 911 (Assyrian dates) = B.C. 962, which 
corresponds with the 1st year of Asa, and ends in the year B.C. 659 (the 37th 
year of Manasseh). 

Canon II extends from B.C. 893 (Assyrian dates) =b.c. 944 to B.C. 691. 

Canon III from B.C. 810 (Assyrian dates) =b.c. 861 to B.C. 647. 

Canon IV from B.C. 753 to 697, but originally it contained names now lost, 
bringing it down to about B.C. 637. 

Canon V preserves names from B.C. 817 (Assyrian dates) = b.c. 868 to 
bc. 728. 

Canon VI has a few names between B.C. 819 (Assyrian dates) =b.c. 870 
and B.C. 804 (Assyrian dates) =b.c. 855, and also some further names between 
B.C. 708 and 700. 

Canon VII has a few names between B.C. 829 and 822 (Assyrian dates) = 
B. c. 880 to 873, and some further names between B.C. 768 and 748, and between 
B.C. 732 and 723. 



220 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



By piecing together the various parts of the VII Canons a list of the annual 
Eponyms of Assyria has been made out for the period from B.C. 911 (Assyrian 
dates) =b.c. 962 to B.C. 647. 

There are several gaps of a few years in which a number of names have 
been lost, and it is believed by one school of Assyriologists that a whole block 
of 51 consecutive names, from B.C. 834 to 783, has been dropped out, so that 
the names from B.C. 783 and upwards (Assyrian dates) are really those of the 
Eponyms for B.C. 834 and upwards. 

This view of the Canon is the one that agrees with the Chronology of the 
Old Testament. It is the view held in a modified form by Prof. Oppert, 
Rev. D. H. Haigh, Willis J. Beecher and other authorities, whilst Schrader, 
Sir H. Rawlinson and E. A. W. Budge (in the British Museum Guide) regard 
the Canon as we have it as complete, and adhere to the Assyrian dates, which 
throw all Old Testament and all Egyptian synchronisms above the year 
B.C. 783, 51 years out of joint. 

George Smith cannot be claimed by either side. He says, " My own 
theory for the solution of the problem is founded on the principle of taking 
the Assyrian records to be correct as to Assyrian dates and the Hebrew 
Records as to Hebrew dates." And he regards the Ahab and Jehu mentioned 
on the Stele of Shalmaneser as two other persons, not to be identified with 
the Ahab and the Jehu of the Old Testament. 

Of course, the Canon itself gives us no dates. On the side of the Shorter 
Chronology of the Assyrian dates there is simply the list of names which 
constitute the Canon, confirmed by certain long numbers which may be 
regarded as proving that the later Assyrian scribes, who compiled and copied 
and preserved these Eponym lists, held them to be continuous, but the 
authority of these scribes is that of late compilers, not that of contemporary 
witnesses, and it would be quite easy for a list of 51 names to be lost, or 
destroyed by accident (e.g. by fire), or purposely, by the founder of a new 
dynasty who wished to obliterate the records of his predecessors. 

The records of Shalmaneser II (III) were probably destroyed by the 
usurper Sargon, and the records of the blank period of 51 years, B.C. 834-783, 
may have been similarly destroyed by Ashur-dan III when he came to the 
throne in B.C. 773. Syncellus says the records for this period were tampered 
with, and he assigns this as the reason why Ptolemy's Canon went back no 
further than B.C. 747. In a similar way, during the French Revolution, 
the country mansions were all fired in order that the title deeds contained 
in them might be destroyed. 

A more exact parallel would be that of the Order of the Privy Council, 
giving the official authorization which led to the printing of the words, 
" Appointed to be read in Churches," by the King's printer, Robert Barker, 
in the original copies of the Version now universally known as the "Authorised 
Version." This Order was destroyed, together with other records of the Privy 
Council in a fire which occurred at Whitehall in January, 161S (old stylo). 
This leaves a gap of several years in the records of the Privy Council, and it 
has led many to the erroneous conclusion that the Authorised Version never 
was officially authorised at all. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 221 



C. Fragmentary Lists of Assyrian Eponyms. 

The list of Assyrian Eponyms, which has been drawn up by piecing 
together all the information given in the VII Canons, contains also the 
occasional record of the most striking event of any particular year. 

Thus, we have " B.C. 722, Eponym of the Ninip-ilai, accession of Sargon, 
siege of Samaria." " B.C. 711, Eponym of Ninip-alik-pani, expedition to 
Ashdod." " B.C. 668, Eponym of Marlarmi, Esar-haddon died." 

These addenda are derived from certain fragmentary lists of Eponyms 
which contain notes of the principal events of each year (Rawlinson's Cuneiform 
Inscriptions, vol. ii, plates 52, 69 ; Schrader, vol. ii, pp. 188-197). These lists 
extend from (b.c. 817 Assyrian dates— )b.c. 868 to B.C. 728. 

D. The Synchronous History of Assyria and Babylon. 

There is no Babylonian Eponym Canon or list of annual officials in Babylon, 
but there are certain documents which may be called Babylonian chronicles, 
written in the Persian period, which give lists of dynasties and Kings, and 
the number of years they reigned. 

There are also fragments of writings that give a synchronous history of 
the two countries. 

The history of Assyria was interwoven with that of Babylon from the 
very earliest times, and these documents describe the relations and the exploits 
of the various contemporary Babylonian and Assyrian Kings, sometimes 
dating events by the year, the month and the day, but they exist only in a 
mutilated condition, and do not give us a continuous Chronology. 



PERIOD IV. GENTILE DOMINION-2 Kings 24 to Esther. 



Chapter XXIV. The Captivity, 
(an. hom. 3520-3589). 

[It is very desirable that in reading this chapter, the Chronological Tables 
in Vol. II should be kept open at page 30 for constant reference.'] 

The date of the captivity is the 3rd year of Jehoiakim, the year an. hom. 
3520, B.C. 605, the 21st year of Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar's father, as 
King of Babylon, in which year Nebuchadnezzar, being associated with his 
father on the throne, was also " King of Babylon," though the year he was 
Co-Rex with his father is not reckoned as his first year. 

We learn from Daniel i 1 " 7 that " In the third year of the reign of 
Jehoiakim King of Judah, came Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon unto 
Jerusalem, and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim into his hand with 
part of the vessels of the house of God," and certain of the seed royal, amongst 
whom were Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego. This was in accord- 
ance with the prophecy of Isa. 39 7 , uttered in the 14th year of Hezekiah, 
B.C. 711, just 106 years before. 

The following year, the fourth of Jehoiakim, was the first year of 
Nebuchadnezzar. The synchronism is given in Jer. 25 \ This is one of the 
most important dates in the Bible. It is the link which connects together 
the years of sacred and profane Chronology. By it all events of Bible history 
from the creation of Adam onward, are brought into chronological relation 
with the events of our own day, so far as the record of the years has been 
accurately preserved from the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar onward. 

The 4th year of Jehoiakim was also the 23rd year of Jeremiah's prophecies, 
which began in the 13th year of Josiah (Jer. 25 3 ). It was the year in which 
Jeremiah's memorable prophecy of the 70 years' captivity in Babylon was 
uttered. All the Kingdoms of the world were to serve the King of Babylon 
for 70 years (Jer. 25 8_ 2 6 ) . Then Sheshach, or Babylon herself, was to be punished 
in a similar way. All nations were to serve the King of Babylon, and his son, 
and his son's son (Jer. 27 6 - 7 ). 

In the same year, Jeremiah was charged to commit to writing all the 
prophecies that he had uttered during the 23 years of his prophetic ministry 
(Jer. 36 1- 2 ) . Baruch his scribe was told not to seek great things for himself, 
for the Lord was about to bring evil upon all flesh, nevertheless Baruch's 
life would be spared (Jer. 45 1_5 ). 

It was the year in which Pharaoh-necho, who had gone as far East as 
Carchemish, on the river Euphrates, in order to obtain his share of the plunder 

222 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 223 



arising from the fall of Nineveh and the Empire of Assyria, was smitten by 
Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 46 s ), so that he " came not again any more out of his 
land : for the King of Babylon had taken from the river of Egypt unto the 
river Euphrates, all that pertained to the King of Egypt " (2 Kings 24 7 ). 

The following year, B.C. 603, was the 5th of Jehoiakim and the 2nd of 
Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel had been three years, in training (Dan. i 5 ), viz. 
from the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar when he was Co-Rex with his 
father (b.c. 605) to the 2nd year of his reign as sole King (b.c. 603). Nebuchad- 
nezzar was on the eve of a great career, his mind was filled with thoughts of 
Empire, and he dreamed his dream of the great image of gold and silver and 
brass and iron which Daniel interpreted as a revelation of the purposes of 
God, respecting the four great World Empires of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece 
and Rome (Dan. 2 1-45 ). 

Jehoiakim reigned altogether 11 years. He was made King by Pharaoh- 
necho (b.c. 608) and served him for three years, when his capital was besieged 
and himself bound in fetters (b.c. 605) by Nebuchadnezzar, who intended 
to carry him to Babylon (2 Chron. 36 6 ), but he was afterwards released and 
allowed to retain his throne as a vassal King under Nebuchadnezzar. He 
served Nebuchadnezzar three years, to his 5th year (2 Kings 24 1 ) ) then (b.c. 603) 
he turned and rebelled. Nebuchadnezzar was too busy in other parts of his 
Dominion to deal with him just then, but he allowed him to be harassed by 
bands of Chaldees, Syrians, Moabites and Ammonites (2 Kings 24 2 ). 

In this 5th year of Jehoiakim a fast was proclaimed in Jerusalem (Jer. 36 9 ) . 
Jehoiakim sat in the winter-house, with a fire burning on the hearth before him. 
Jehudi read to him from the Roll of the prophecies of Jeremiah, and Jehoiakim 
took the Roll and cut it with a penknife and cast it into the fire (Jer. 36 21 " 23 ). 

Five years later Nebuchadnezzar came up against Jerusalem in the 7th year 
of his reign (b.c. 598), and took 3,023 Jews (Jer. 52 28 ). 

What happened to Jehoiakim, or how he met his death, is only told in the 
form of prophecy. He died unlamented, in the nth year of his reign, and 
was buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates 
of Jerusalem (Jer. 22 18 * 19 ). 

He was succeeded by his son Jehoiachin, who only reigned three months. 

There is a double statement with respect to the age of Jehoiachin at the 
time when he began to reign. Both statements are equally true, but the two 
writers who make them reckon the years from a different starting point. 
In 2 Kings 24 s we read, " Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he began to reign," 
viz. in the nth year of his father Jehoiakim. This same year was also the 
8th year of Nebuchadnezzar, and it was this fact which was in the mind of the 
writer of 2 Chron. 36 9 , when he said, " Jehoiachin was " a son of 8 years " when 
he began to reign." The expression " son of " is used with a great deal of 
latitude, and is made to cover almost any genitive relation or reference to a 
point of origin or commencement. Here the words are used to express the 
number of years between the accession of Jehoiachin and the 1st year of the 
new Era of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. 

The author of the Companion Bible thinks Jehoiachin did actually begin 
to reign as Co-Rex with his father ten years before, in the 1st year of Jehoiakim, 



224 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



which is a possible alternative interpretation of the words, " Jehoiachin was 
a son of eight years when he began to reign/' 

If we refuse to place ourselves at the point of view of the writer in order 
that we may understand his meaning, and instead, insist on forcing our own 
thought into his words, we shall have to admit a careless copyist's error, the 
word " eight " having been written down by the transcriber instead of the 
word eight (een) by the omission of the word for 10 in the Hebrew, which is 
also a possible alternative theory of the origin of the Text, though not an 
interpretation of it. 

But with a knowledge of the author's method of writing the Chronology 
and dating the events, gained from 2 Chron. 16 1 (the 36th year of the Kingdom 
of Asa), and 2 Chron. 22 2 (Ahaziah was " a son of 42 years " when he began 
to reign), we ought to be prepared for the new method of dating which he adopts 
here. 

In this same year, the 8th of Nebuchadnezzar, in which Jehoiachin ascended 
the throne, Nebuchadnezzar came up against Jerusalem and beseiged it. 
Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiachin, his mother, his servants, his officers, and 
all the mighty men of the land, and carried them away to Babylon, together 
with the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the King's 
house, and 10,000 captives, including 7,000 mighty men of valour, 1,000 
craftsmen and smiths ; all that were strong and apt for war, the King of 
Babylon brought captive to Babylon (2 Kings 24 s-16 ). 

Amongst the number of these captives were Ezekiel and Mordecai. In 
Ezek. 1 1 * 2 , Ezekiel says he was among the captives by the river Chebar in 
the 5th year of Jehoiachin's captivity, B.C. 593, which was the 4th year of 
Zedekiah and the 12th year of Nebuchadnezzar. And in Ezek. 40 \ he speaks 
of the great vision which he had in the " 25th year of our captivity," thus 
including himself amongst the number of the captives carried away with 
Jehoiachin. All his prophecies are dated with reference to this event (Ezek. 
1 2 , 8 1 , 20 \ 24 1 , 26 \ 29 1 * 17 , 30 20 , 31 1 , 32 17 , 33 2 1 , 40 1 ). 

In Esther 2 5< 6 we read, " Now in Shushan the palace there was a certain 
Jew, whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Kish, a Benjamite, 
who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captivity which had 
been carried away with Jeconiah (Jehoiachin), King of Judah, whom 
Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon had carried away." From this it is perfectly 
clear that Mordecai is the man whom the writer means to indicate as having 
been carried away with Jeconiah in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar. His 
name appears as one of the leaders of those who returned with Zerubbabel 
(Ezra 2 2 , Neh. 7 7 ), but in consequence of the misdating of the Books of Ezra, 
Nehemiah and Esther, this verse has been misinterpreted, and made to mean 
that it was not Mordecai, but Kish, his grandfather, who was carried away 
with Jeconiah. 

In 2 Chron. 36 10 , we read that at the return of the year (A.V. margin), or 
" when the year was expired," King Nebuchadnezzar brought Jehoiachin to 
Babylon and made Zedekiah King over Judah and Jerusalem. This probably 
means that Zedekiah did not actually begin to reign till after the New Year's 
Day following the year in which Jehoiachin reigned. Hence we date the 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



225 



last year of Jehoiakim and the three months of Jehoiachin in the 8th of Nebu- 
chadnezzar, the year B.C. 597, and the 1st year of Zedekiah, in the 9th of 
Nebuchadnezzar, the year B.C. 596. 

In the year an. hom. 3532 = 6. c. 593, i.e. 390 years after the disruption in 
an. hom. 3143 = B.C. 982, in the 5th day of the 4th month of the 5th year of 
Jehoiachin's captivity, Ezekiel began to prophesy. 

This fact is referred to in the type or sign given to the Prophet in the 1st 
year of his prophecy and recorded in Ezek. 4 4-6 . 

" Lie thou also upon thy left side and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel 

upon it : according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie 

upon it, thou shalt bear their iniquity. 
" For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to 

the number of the days, 390 days : so shalt thou bear the iniquity 

of the house of Israel. 
" And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, 

and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah 40 days : 

I have appointed thee each day for a year." 

The 390 years of the iniquity of Israel are the years from the disruption 
to the date of the prophecy. The 40 years of the iniquity of Judah are the 
40 years of the prophecies of Jeremiah from their commencement in the 13th 
year of Josiah, B.C. 626, to the 10th year of Zedekiah, B.C. 587, in which year 
Zedekiah shut him up in prison (Jer. 32 1_3 ). 

The date of Ezekiel's first prophecy is given as the 5th day of the 4th 
month of the 30th year of some Era which is not expressly defined, but this 
30th year is identified with the 5th year of Jehoiachin's captivity (Ezek. i 12 ). 
Reckoning back these 30 years, we find that the first year of this Era was the 
year B.C. 622, the 17th year of Josiah, the year of the discovery of the Book 
.of the Law, and of the great religious revival which culminated in Josiah's 
great Passover in his 18th year, B.C. 621. It may mark the year of the fall of 
Nineveh and the end of the Empire of Assyria, which occurred at some time 
after B.C. 626, but the exact date of which cannot be definitely ascertained. 

In Jer. 28 1_ 3 we read of another event which occurred in the 4th year of 
Zedekiah (b.c. 593). In the 5th month of this year, Hananiah, the false 
prophet, spoke to Jeremiah in the house of the Lord, and said, "Within two 
full years will I bring again into this place all the vessels of the Lord's House 
that Nebuchadnezzar took away." 

In the following year, B.C. 592, in the 5th day of the 6th month of the 6th 
year of Jehoiachin's captivity, Ezekiel had his vision of the chambers of 
imagery (Ezek. 8 1 ). 

In the year after this, B.C. 591, on the 10th day of the 5th month of the 7th 
year of Jehoiachin's captivity, we read of the remarkable experience of the 
cessation of prophecy, when the Elders come to enquire of Ezekiel, but there 
is no answer from God (Ezek. 20 1 ). 

In the year B.C. 589, we reach the remarkable prophecy of the boiling 
cauldron, Ezek. 24 1 " 29 . It is dated the 10th day of the 10th month of the 
9th year of Jehoiachin's captivity, and as the years of Jehoiachin's captivity 
p 



226 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



are always one more than the years of Zedekiah's reign, the date of the prophecy 
is the ioth day of the ioth month of the 8th year of Zedekiah. This is the 
Epoch of the 70 years of Jehovah's indignation with Israel, another 70 years, 
quite distinct from the 70 years of Daniel's captivity. 

The prophecy comes to Ezekiel precisely one year before the day on which 
Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem. Ezekiel is bidden to " write the 
name of the day, even of this same day, the King of Babylon set himself against 
Jerusalem this same day." It was a memorable day, the beginning of a 
prophetic period, and Ezekiel was told to note it down. It marked the 
commencement of the fury and the vengeance which Jehovah now began to 
execute upon Jerusalem. 

The city was like a pot set on a fire and made to boil, a parable of the condition 
of the inhabitants of Jerusalem when the city was besieged by Nebuchad- 
nezzar. The indignation lasted till the building of the Temple was recommenced 
in the 2nd year of Darius B.C. 589-520 (see Vol. II, Chronological Tables, 
pp. 30 and 34, and cp. Zech. 1 7-12 ). 

Alternative dates have been proposed for the commencement of this period 
of 70 years, viz. the following year, B.C. 588, when the siege of Jerusalem 
began, or the year, B.C. 586, when the city was taken, but the true date is 
given in Ezek. 24 1 . The name of the day which Ezekiel was charged to write 
was the ioth day of the ioth month of the 9th year of Jehoiachin's captivity, 
B.C. 589, on the anniversary of which day, exactly a year later, " the King of 
Babylon set himself against Jerusalem." 

In B.C. 588 Nebuchadnezzar pitched against Jerusalem and besieged it 
(2 Kings 25 1 , Jer. 39 1 , 52 4 ), on the ioth day of the ioth month of the 9th 
year of Zedekiah. On the 12th day of the ioth month of the ioth year of 
Jehoiachin's captivity, also B.C. 588, Ezekiel prophesied that Egypt should 
be desolate for 40 years (Ezk. 29 1 11 12 ). 

The following year, B.C. 587, was the ioth year of Zedekiah, the nthyear 
of Jehoiachin's captivity, the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar, the 2nd year of 
the siege of Jerusalem, and the last of the 40 years of Jeremiah's prophecies 
before the fall of Jerusalem (Ezek. 4 4_6 ). 

In this year, Jeremiah bought his uncle Hananeel's field (while Nebu- 
chadnezzar was besieging Jerusalem, Zedekiah having shut him up in prison), 
as witness to his faith in the future of the Land, in spite of its present 
desperate state (Jer. 32 1-12 ). 

In this year also, Nebuchadnezzar took 832 souls (Jer. 52 29 ). 

In this year, Ezekiel prophesied against Tyre, on the 1st day of the nth 
year of Jehoiachin's captivity, because she rejoiced over the calamity of 
Jerusalem, and said, "Aha, Jerusalem is broken" (Ezek. 26 1 ). On the 
7th day of the 1st month of the nth year of Jehoiachin's captivity, Jeremiah 
prophesied against Egypt, and said, I have broken Pharaoh and will 
scatter Egypt (Ezek. 30 20 ). On the 1st day of the 3rd month of the nth 
year of Jehoiachin's captivity he prophesied again against Egypt, and 
declared that Egypt should fall like Assyria, the Cedar of Lebanon 
(Ezek. 31 1-3 ). 

The following year, B.C. 586, is the year of the fall of Jerusalem. It was 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



227 



the nth of Zedekiah, the 12th of Jehoiachin's captivity, and the 19th of 
Nebuchadnezzar's reign. 

We learn from 2 Kings 25 1_ 4 , Jer. 39 2 and 52 4 ~ 7 , that on the 9th day of 
the 4th month of the nth year of Zedekiah, the famine prevailed, and the city 
was broken up, and from 2 Kings 25 s and Jer. 52 12 that on the 7th day of 
the 5th month of the nth year of Zedekiah, "which was the 19th year of 
Nebuchadnezzar," Nebuzar-adan burnt the Temple and broke down the walls. 

From 2 Kings 25 18-21 we learn that shortly after the 7th day of the 5th 
month of the nth year of Zedekiah, the high priest, Seraiah, who was the father 
of Jehozadak (1 Chron. 6 1-15 ) and Ezra (Ez. 7 1 ~ 5 ) was brought before Nebu- 
chadnezzar at Riblah, in the land of Hamath, and there slain. " So Judah was 
carried away out of their land " in the 5th month of the nthyear of Zedekiah 
(2 Kings 25 21 , Jer. 1 3 ). Six months later, in the 7th month of the nth year 
of Zedekiah, Gedaliah, who had been appointed governor of Judah by 
Nebuchadnezzar, was slain by Ishmael (2 Kings 25 2 5 , Jer. 41 1 ). 

We are now in a position to give the Chronology of the pericd from the 
first year of Rehoboam to the nth year of Zedekiah, to which we append 
a similar Chronology of the Kings of Israel. 

Kings of Judah. 

AN. HOM. 

3143. Rehoboam (see chapter 30). 

17. Add 17 years, reign of Rehoboam (1 Kings 11 43 , 14 2 x ). 
3160. Abijam. 

3. Add 3 yrs. reign of Abijam (1 K. 15 lm 2 ). 
3163. Asa. 

41. Add 41 yrs. reign of Asa (1 K. I5 9,10 ). 
3204. Jehoshaphat. 

25. Add 25 yrs. reign of Jehoshaphat (1 K. 22 41 - 42 ). 
3229. Jehoram sole King. 

Add 3 yrs. reign of Jehoram as sole King + 4 years Co-Rex with 
Jehoshaphat + 1 yr. reckoned to Ahaziah = 8 yrs., (cp. 1 K. 22 50 , 
2 K.i 17 , 3 1 , 8 1617 , and see Vol. II, Chronological Tables, p. 24, 

3. AN. HOM. 322O-3232.) 

3232. Ahaziah sole King. 

Add 1 yr. reign of Ahaziah (cp. 2 K. 8 25 26 , 9 29 and see Vol. II, 
1. Chronological Tables, p. 24, an. hom. 3231-3232). 

3233. Athaliah. 

6. Add 6 yrs. reign of Athaliah, (2 K. 11 1-3.4.16) 
,3239. Joash. 

40. Add 40 yrs. reign of Joash (2 K. 12 1 ). 
3279. Amaziah. 

29. Add 29 yrs. reign of Amaziah (2 K. 12 21 , 14 1 ' 2 , 17_22 ). 
3308. Interregnum. 

Add 11 yrs. interregnum (see Vol. II, Chronological Tables, p. 26, 

II. AN. HOM. 3308-3318). 

3319. Uzziah. 



228 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 

AN. HOM. 

3319. Uzziah. 

52. Add 52 yrs. reign of Uzziah ( - Azariah) (2 K. 14 21 , 15 1 - 2 ). 
3371. Jotham. 

16. Add 16 yrs. reign of Jotham (2 K. 15 3233 ). 
3387. Ahaz. 

16. Add 16 yrs. reign of Ahaz (2 K. 15 38 , 16 
3403. Hezekiah sole King. 

Add 27 yrs. reign of Hezekiah as sole King + 2 yrs. as Co-Rex with 
Ahaz = 29 yrs. (2 K. 16 20 , 18 1 2 . See Vol. II, Chronological 

27. Tables, pp. 27, 28, an. hom. 3400-3429). 
3430. Manasseh. 

55. Add 55 yrs. reign of Manasseh (2 K. 20 21 , 21 1 ). 
3485. Anion. 

2. Add 2 yrs. reign of Anion (2 K. 21 1819 ). 
3487. Josiah. 

30. Add first 30 yrs. reign of Josiah. 

3517. Jehoahaz (3 months). 

Add 31st year of Josiah, (2 K. 21 23 ~ 26 , 22 1 ), which includes 3 months 
1. of Jehoahaz (2 K. 23 30 - 31 ). 

3518. Jehoiakim. 

10. Add first 10 yrs. of reign of Jehoiakim. 

3528. Jehoiachin (3 months). 

Add nth yr. of Jehoiakim (2 K. 23 s6 ), which includes 3 months of 

I. Jehoiachin (2 K. 24 6 ~ 8 ). 

3529. Zedekiah. 

10. Add first 10 yrs. of Zedekiah. 
3539. nth and last year of Zedekiah (2 K. 24 1718 ), in which Jerusalem 
was taken by Nebuchadnezzar, and Zedekiah's captivity began 
(2 K. 25 1 " 21 ). 

Kings of Israel. 

3143. Jeroboam (see Chapter 20). 

21. Add 21 years + 1 reckoned to Nadab= 22 (1 Kings 12 2 °, 14 2 °). 

3164. Nadab. 

1. Add 1 yr. +1 reckoned to Baasha = 2 (1 K. 15 25 ). 

3165. Baasha. 

23. Add 23 yrs. + i reckoned to Elah = 24 (1 K. 15 28 33 ). 

3188. Elah. 

1. Add 1 yr. + 1 reckoned to Omri = 2 (1 K. 16 8 ). 

3189. Omri, Tibni and Zimri (see Vol. II, Chronological Tables, p. 23, 

an. hom. 3189-3200). 

II. Add 11 yrs. + i reckoned to Ahab = 12 (1 K. 16 22 ; 23 ). 
3200. Ahab. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 229 

AN. HOM. 

3200. Ahab. 

20. Add 20 yrs. + 2 Co-Rex with Ahaziah = 22 (1 K. 16 29 ). 

3220. Ahaziah. 

Add 1 yr. + 1 reckoned to Jehoram == 2 (1 K. 22 51 ). (See Vol. II, 
1. Chronological Tables, p. 24, an. hom. 3220-3221). 

3221. Jehoram. 

Add 12 yrs. reign of Jehoram (2 K. 1 11 , 3 1 ). (See Vol. II, Chronological 
12. Tables, p. 24, an. hom 3221-3232.) 
3233. Jehu. 

28. Add 28 yrs. reign of Jehu (2 K. g 13 - **• 2733 io 36 ). 
3261. Jehoahaz. 

17. Add 17 yrs. reign of Jehoahaz (2 K. 10 35 , 13 1 ). 
3278. Jehoash sole King. 

Add 15 yrs. + 1 reckoned to Jeroboam 11= 16 (2 K. 13 9 - 1 °). (See Vol. II, 

15. Chronological Tables, p. 25, an. hom. 3275-3293.) 
3293. Jeroboam II. 

41. Add 41 yrs. reign of Jeroboam II (2 K. I4 16,23 ). 
3334. Interregnum. 

Add 22 yrs. interregnum. (See Vol. II, Chronological [Tables, p. 26, 

22. an. hom. 3334-3355-) 

3356. Zechariah. 

1. Add 1 yr. for Zechariah (6 mos.), (2 K. 14 29 , 15 8 ). 

3357. Shallum. 

Add 1 yr. for Shallum (1 mo.), (2 K. 15 1013 , and accession of 

1. Menahem, 2 K. 15 1417 ). 

3358. Menahem. 

10. Add 10 yrs. reign of Menahem (2 K. 15 14, 17 ). 
3368. Pekahiah. 

2. Add 2 yrs. reign of Pekahiah (2 K. 15 23,24 ). 
3370. Pekah. 

20. Add 20 yrs. reign of Pekah (2 K. 15 25 " 27 ). 
3390. Interregnum. 

Add 8 yrs. Interregnum. (See Vol. II, Chronological Tables, p. 27, 
8- an. hom. 339°-3397-) 
3398. Hoshea. 

8. Add first 8 yrs. of Hoshea. 
3406. 9th and last year of Hoshea (2 K. 17 1 ). Final fall of Samaria and 
deportation of its inhabitants by Sargon, B.C. 719, three years 
after its previous capture by Sargon, B.C. 722, when he took the 
city, but left the inhabitants and imposed tribute upon them 
(2 K. 17 !- 23 ). 

News of the fall of Jerusalem travelled to the East. The city fell in the 
5th month of the nth year of Zedekiah. Five months later, on the 5th day 



230 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



of the ioth month of the 12th year of Jehoiachin's captivity (the same year, B.C. 
586), one that had escaped from Jerusalem came to Ezekiel and said, " The 
city is smitten." 

Harold Browne, in his excellent Ordo Sceclorum : Chronology of the Holy 
Scriptures, p. 167, makes the years of Zedekiah's reign coincide with the years 
of Jehoiachin's captivity. This he thinks he proves from 2 Kings 25 1 and 
Ezek. 24 1 , the ioth day of the ioth month of the 9th year of Zedekiah being 
equated to the ioth day of the ioth month of the 9th year of Jehoiachin's 
captivity. But he is mistaken. Ezek. 24 1 is prophetic. Ezekiel sees Nebu- 
chadnezzar pitching against Jerusalem, not in contemporary vision at the very 
moment at which he is doing so, but in prophetic vision, exactly one year ahead 
to the very day. 

In consequence of Browne's error he is tripped up when he comes to Ezek. 
33 21 > where his reckoning makes the man who escapes from Jerusalem reach 
Ezekiel in Chaldea 1 year and 5 months after the city is smitten, instead of 
5 months after the event. It was just a four or five months' journey (Ezra 7 9 ), 
and the news of such an event could not fail to reach Ezekiel and the Jews in 
captivity within about four or five months of the event. But rather than 
abandon his own error, he charges it upon the Hebrew Text. The Hebrew 
reading of Ezek. 33 21 is " in the 12th year." Browne alters it to " the 
eleventh ! " 

In this same year, B.C. 586, on the 1st day of the 12th month of Jehoiachin's 
captivity, Ezekiel dates his lamentation for Pharaoh, in which he declares that 
the Lord will make Egypt dssolate (Ezek. 32 x ), and also the further prophecy 
on the 15th day (of the same month) of the 12th year of Jehoiachin's captivity, 
his wail for Egypt (Ezek. 32 17 ) with its terrible refrain : — 

All of them slain, fallen by the sword, 
Gone down uncircumcised into the pit, 
Into the nethermost parts of the earth, 
Into the midst of hell. 

Four years later there was another expedition of some kind against Jeru- 
salem, for in that year (b.c. 582), the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuzar-adan 
took 745 souls, making a total of 4,600, for three expeditions in the 7th, 18th 
and 23rd years of Nebuchadnezzar, which, however, does not include those 
carried away with Jehoiachin in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 52 - 8 - 30 ). 

Our next note of time is in the year B.C. 573, on the ioth day of the beginning 
of the 25th year of Jehoiachin's captivity, which was the 14th year after the 
city was smitten. Ezekiel had a wonderful vision of the new Land, the new 
city, and the new Temple, the account of which forms the climax of his Book 
(Ezek. 40-48, especially 40 x ). 

Two years later, in B.C. 571, on the 1st day of the 1st month of the 27th 
year of Jehoiachin's captivity, Ezekiel prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar 
should have Egypt as wages for his service against Tyre (Ezek. 29 17 ). 

Then follows a blank of 9 years to the end of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, 
very noteworthy as the period containing the 7 years of Nebuchadnezzar's 
madness, after which we read in Jer. 52 31 that on the 25th day of the 12th 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



231 



month of the 37th year of Johoiachin's captivity (b.c. 561), Evil-merodach, the 
son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar, in the year in which he came to the throne, 
brought Jehoiachin out of prison, and in 2 Kings 25 2 7 that on the 27th day 
of the same month he showed him further kindness out of prison. 

The Bible contains no record of the events of the succeeding 19 years, but 
we learn from Dan. 7 1 that in the 1st year of Belshazzar (b.c. 541), Daniel 
had his vision of the four beasts symbolizing Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece 
and Rome, and throwing further light upon the course of the future history 
of the world, as revealed in the previous vision of Nebuchadnezzar's great image. 

Two years later (b.c. 539), in the 3rd year of Belshazzar, Daniel had his 
vision of the ram and the he-goat, foreshadowing the coming conflict between 
Persia and Greece (Dan. 8 1 ). 

Daniel 5 gives a picture of the fall of Babylon in the year B.C. 538, and 
the transfer of the Empire of the world from Babylon to Medo-Persia. The 
accounts of this event are very divergent. One of them represents Cyrus as 
the nephew and son-in-law of Darius the Mede, but he was more probably 
his cousin and his brother-in-law, having married the sister of Darius the Mede 
(Astyages). See Vol. II, Chronological Tables, p. 54. 

" In that night," we read (Dan. 5 30 31 ), " was Belshazzar the King of the 
Chaldeans slain. And Darius the Median received the Kingdom, being about 
62 years old." There was no battle. Belshazzar was slain in the palace, 
Cyrus was the conqueror of Babylon, and he handed it over to Darius, who 
" received " it from him as his Co-Partner in the Empire of the world. 

The length of the reign of Darius the Median is not stated in Scripture, nor 
is Darius himself mentioned in profane literature under that name, except in 
Josephus, but it is clear from Dan. 6 28 that he was succeeded by Cyrus, and 
from 2 Chron. 36 2 0-2 3 that the 1st year of Cyrus was the 70th and last of the 
70 years' captivity which began in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim, B.C. 605. Hence, 
whatever may be the number and the names of the monarchs between Nebu- 
chadnezzar and Cyrus, and whatever the number of years that each monarch 
reigned, we know that the 1st year of Cyrus was the year b.c. 536, and we may 
provisionally accept the received dates derived from secular history as given 
by E. A. W. Budge in the British Museum Guide : — 

561. Evil-merodach. 

559. Nergal-sharezer (Neriglissar) . 

556. Labashi-marduk. 

555. Nabonidus. 

538. Conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, 

adding thereto the name of Belshazzar as Co-Rex with his father Nabonidus, 
B.C. 541-539, and the name of Darius the Mede as Rex B.C. 538 and 537, with 
Cyrus as Co-Rex during these two years, and making Cyrus sole King on the 
death of Darius the Mede, B.C. 536. 

The Chronology of the first 20 years of the 70 years' servitude down to 
the nth year of Zedekiah, has already been given in the present chapter. The 
remaining 50 years is divided into two equal parts of 25 years each. The 
Chronology of the period is as follows : — 



232 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



The Seventy Years of Daniel's Captivity, 
or 

The Seventy Years of Servitude to Babylon. 

AN. HOM. 

3539. nth Zedekiah = 19th Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25 s ) = 12th 
Jehoiachin's captivity = 20th of the 70 years' servitude. 
See above (present chapter), and Vol. II, Chronological 
Tables, p. 30, an. hom. 3539. 
Add 25 years from 12th to 37th year of Jehoiachin's captivity 
= 45th year of the 70 years' servitude (2 Kings 25 27 )\ 
See Vol. II, Chronological Tables, pp. 30-32, an. hom. 3539- 
25. 3564. 
3564. Evil-merodach. 

Add 25 years from 45th to 70th of the 70 years' servitude, 
Dan. 1 1 , Jer. 25 1_26 . 
25. See Vol. II, Chronological Tables, p. 32, AN. hom. 3564-3589. 
3589. Cyrus (1st year of sole Kingship). 

Chapter XXV. The Return, 
(an. hom. 3589-3637-) 

The Persian Period. 

We now reach the most difficult period in the whole realm of Bible Chro- 
nology, the period of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther. 

Our sole authority for this period is the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah and 
Esther. There are cuneiform Inscriptions by Cyrus, by Darius Hystaspes, 
and by each of the succeeding Persian monarchs down to the last King of 
Persia, who was slain by Alexander the Great, and the Behistun Inscription 
by Darius Hystaspes contains some very valuable information, but none of 
these Inscriptions give us any help in fixing the Chronology of the period. 

Neither do we obtain any help in this direction from Jewish, Persian or 
Greek literature. The Jewish and the Persian traditions make the period of 
the Persian Empire a period of about 52 years. There are no contemporary 
chronological records whatever to fix the dates of any of the Persian Monarch 
after Darius Hystaspes. The clay tablets of Babylon fix the Chronology 
for the reigns of Cyrus, Cambyses, Pseudo-Smerdis and Darius Hystaspes, but 
they do not determine the date of any subsequent Persian King. 

The dates that have reached us, and which are now generally received 
as historical, are a late compilation made in the 2nd Century a. d., and found 
in Ptolemy's Canon. They rest upon the calculations or guesses made by 
Eratosthenes and certain vague, floating traditions, in accordance with which 
the period of the Persian Empire was mapped out as a period of 205 years. 

The count of the years is now lost, but if we may assume the correctness 
of the Greek Chronology from the period of Alexander the Great (B.C. 331) 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 233 



onward, this would leave a period of 123 years for the duration of the Persian 
Empire according to the prophecy of Daniel. 
The received Chronology is as follows : — 

The Received Chronology of the Persian Empire. 



Cyrus, as Co-Rex with Darius the Mede . . B.C. 


538. 


,, as sole King 


536. 


Cambyses 


529. 


(Pseudo-Smerdis, 7 mos.) 




Darius Hystaspes 


521. 


Xerxes 


485. 


(Artabanus, 7 mos.) 




Artaxerxes Longimanus 


464. 


(Xerxes II, 2 mos.) 




(Sogdianus, 7 mos.) 




Darius II, Nothus 


423. 


Artaxerxes II, Mnemon 


404. 


Artaxerxes JII, Ochus.. 


358. 


Arogus or Arses 


337- 


Darius III, Codomannus, reigned 335-331, slain . . 


330. 



The generally received opinion is that Cambyses and Pseudo-Smerdis 
are not mentioned in Scripture, that Xerxes is the Ahasuerus of Esther, and 
that Artaxerxes Longimanus is the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7 1 and Nehemiah 2 1 , 
5 14 and 13 6 . 

As our sole authority for the dating of this period is the contemporary 
Hebrew Record contained in Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther, we 
shall, in this chapter, confine ourselves to an exposition of the statements 
made in these Books, from which we think we shall be able to prove con- 
clusively that the identifications of the received Chronology are quite impossible. 

Amended Chronology of the Persian Empire. 

Cambyses is the Ahasuerus of Ez. 4 6 . 
Pseudo-Smerdis is the Artaxerxes of Ez. 4 7-23 . 
Darius Hystaspes is at once both 

(1) Darius of Ezra 4 5 - 24 , 5 5 - 6 , 6 1 - 12 ' 14 - 15 ; 

(2) Artaxerxes of Ezra 6 14 , 7 1 " 26 , Neh. 2 1 , 5 14 and 13 6 , and 

(3) Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther. 

The whole of the Chronology of this period depends entirely upon the 
correct identification of the monarchs mentioned in Ezra, Nehemiah and 
Esther. The present condition of the Chronology of the period is one of hopeless 
confusion. It is easy to expose the contradictions it contains, but what is 
really required is the construction of a positive system which shall prove its 
truth by embracing and explaining all the facts contained in the above-named 
sources. 

For the accomplishment of this end, there must be close and scrupulous 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



attention to the sources themselves, a good deal of long and patient thinking, 
and a wholesome disregard for the many idle hypotheses, rash conjectures, 
and fanciful conclusions which have brought the true science of Chronology 
into undeserved disrepute. 

The three rules which must be observed by every Chronologer whose 
investigations are to lead him into the truth are — (i) Never adopt any date 
which is inconsistent with any other date. (2) Never frame any hypothesis, 
or entertain any conjecture, which cannot be verified or supported by positive 
evidence. And (3) never identify different persons bearing the same name, 
and never fail to identify the same person bearing different names. 

We now turn to our sources, which we will cross-question and examine, 
taking each statement contained therein in chronological order. We begin 
with a reference to the last chapter of 2 Chronicles, which brings us down 
to the end of the 70 years' servitude in Babylon. 

The four Books, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah are one work, on 
one subject, by one author, containing one connected, continuous narrative 
throughout, to which the Book of Esther is a picture, an illustration or an 
appendix, related to the Book of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah in precisely the 
same way as the Book of Ruth is related to Judges 1-16. 

The Book of Daniel is an independent narrative of events which slightly 
overlap the events of the last chapter of 2 Chronicles, and the first chapter of 
Ezra. 

In 2 Chron. 36 20 * 21 , we read that the King of the Chaldees carried away 
them that escaped the sword at the destruction of Jerusalem to Babylon, 
where they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the Kingdom 
of Persia, to fulfil the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the 
Land had enjoyed her sabbaths, for as long as she lay desolate she kept 
sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years. 

The prophecy here referred to is the prophecy of Jeremiah. The only 
70 years referred to by the prophet Jeremiah is the 70 years from the 3rd 
year of Jehoiakim, B.C. 605. This prophecy of seventy years' servitude to the 
King of Babylon was made in the following year, the 4th of Jehoiakim, which 
was the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar. It was made in the most solemn and 
impressive manner, as described in Jer. 25 1 ' 26 , and especially in verses 11 
and 12 : — 

" And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment ; and 
these nations shall serve the King of Babylon 70 years. 

" And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that 
I will punish the King of Babylon, and that nation, saith the Lord, 
for their iniquity, and will make it perpetual desolations. 

This period of 70 years' servitude in Babylon is referred to again in a letter 
which Jeremiah sent from Jerusalem to the people whom Nebuchadnezzar had 
•carried away captive from Jerusalem to Babylon, after the captivity of 
Jehoiachin. In this letter (Jer. 29 1 " 14 ), Jeremiah tells them to build, to 
plant, to take wives and to beget children, and not to be deceived by the false 
prophets who prophesied a short captivity and a speedy return. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



235 



" For thus saith the Lord That after 70 years be accomplished at 
Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in 
causing you to return to this place." 

This same period, is the period of 70 years referred to by the prophet Daniel, 
in Daniel 9 2 , when in the first year of the reign of Darius the Mede, the 68th 
of the 70 years, he says : — 

" 1 Daniel understood by books (i.e. from the Scriptures), the number of 
the years whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, 
that He would accomplish 70 years in the desolations of Jerusalem." 

These are the only references to this period of 70 years in the Old Testament. 
That it begins with the 3rd year of Jehoiakim is clear from Jer. 25 1-1 2 with 
Dan. 1 1 . That it ends with the 1st year of Cyrus is clear from 2 Chron. 36 2 2 . 

" Now in the first year of Cyrus King of Persia, that the word of the 
Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the Lord 
stirred up the spirit of Cyrus King of Persia, that he made a 
proclamation," that whoever was willing should go up to Jerusalem 
and build the house of the Lord. 
In issuing this proclamation, Cyrus says (Ezra 1 2 ) : — 

" The Lord God of Heaven hath charged me to build Him a House at 
Jerusalem." 

This is a reference to the prophecy of Is. 44 28 ~45 13 . 

" (Thus saith the Lord) . . . That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and 
shall perform all my pleasure : even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt 
be built ; and to the Temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. Thus saith 
the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, 
to subdue nations before him ... I, the Lord, which call thee by thy 
name, am the God of Israel ... I have surnamed thee though 
thou hast not known me ... I have raised him (Cyrus) up in righteous- 
ness, and I will direct all his ways : he shall build my city, and he 
shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the Lord of 
hosts." 

The whole of the prophecy is not quoted in Ezra 1 2 , but enough is quoted to 
enable us to identify it, and to learn therefrom that the will of God concerning 
Cyrus had reference to the building of the city as well as the building of the 
Temple. 

Also Daniel's prayer based on the prophecy of Jeremiah respecting this 
period of 70 years has reference to " thy city Jerusalem," as well as to " thy 
sanctuary that is desolate," and ends in the plea " for thy city and thy people 
are called by thy name " (Dan. 9 16 ~ 19 ). 

We may therefore identify " the commandment to restore and to build 
Jerusalem " (Dan. 9 25 ) with the commandment issued two years later by Cyrus, 
in which mention is made of the House as the central feature of the city, but 
in a way that implies the restoration of the city as well as the rebuilding of 
the walls. 

There is another period of 70 years, referred to in the Old Testament, quite 



236 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



distinct from the 70 years of the servitude, in part coinciding with it and in 
part going beyond it. 

This is the period of the 70 years' indignation (b.c. 589-520) which begins 
with the epoch of the boiling cauldron so graphically described by Ezekiel 
(Ezek. 24 1-14 ), dating from the 10th day of the 10th month of the 9th year 
of the captivity of Jehoiachin, on which day the Lord said to him, 

" Son of man, write thee the name of this day, even of this same day" 
(Ezek. 24 2 ). 

This period of 70 years is referred to in Zech. 1 7 ~ 12 , from which we learn 
that it came to a close in the 2nd year of Darius. 

" Upon the 24th day of the nth month ... in the 2nd year of Darius . . . 
the angel of the Lord answered and said . . . how long wilt thou not 
have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which 
, thou hast had indignation these 70 years ? ' ' 

To which enquiry the answer was (Zech. i 16 ), " I am returned to Jerusalem 
with mercies, my house shall be built in it." 

Yet another period of 70 years, the 70 years of the fasts (b.c. 586-517) is 
referred to two years later in Zech. 7 5 . The foundation of the house of the 
Lord had been laid on the 24th day of the 9th month of the 2nd year of Darius 
(Hag. 2 10, 15, 18 ' 20 ). About two years later, on the 4th day of the 9th month 
of the 4th year of Darius (Zech. 7 1 ), Bethel sent Sharezer and Regem-melech 
to enquire whether they should continue to fast on certain days now that the 
foundation of the House had been laid. In his answer to these men, Zechariah 
first asks (Zech. y 5 ), 

" When ye fasted and mourned in the 5th and 7th month, even these 
70 years, did ye at all fast unto me, even to me ? " 

He then goes on to direct (Zech. 8 19 ), that 

" The fast of the 4th month (commemorating the city smitten on the 
9th day of the 4th month of the nth year of Zedekiah), and the 
fast of the 5th month (commemorating the burning of the Temple on 
the 7th day of the 5th month of the nth year of Zedekiah), and the 
fast of the 7th month (commemorating the slaying of Gedaliah in 
the 7th month of the nth year of Zedekiah), and the fast of the 10th 
month (commemorating the siege of the city on the 10th day of 
the 10th month of the 9th year of Zedekiah), shall be to the house 
of Judah joy and gladness and cheerful feasts." 

These 70 years are not quite the same as the 70 years of the indignation 
referred to in Zech. i 12 . They begin with the fall of the city of Jerusalem 
in the nth year of Zedekiah, B.C. 586, and they end with the 5th year of 
Darius. The enquiry was made in the 9th, i.e. the last month of the 4th year 
of Darius (Zech. 7 1 ), and the answer, though given immediately (in the 4th year) 
respecting two of the fasts, was delayed into the 5th year respecting the other 
two (Zech. 7 and 8). 

We have therefore three periods of 70 years to help us in determining the 
Chronology of this period : — 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



237 



1. The 70 years' servitude, from the 3rd year of Jehoiakim to the 1st year 

of Cyrus, B.C. 605-536. 

2. The 70 years' indignation from the 9th year of Jehoiachin's captivity 

to the 2nd year of Darius, B.C. 589-520, and 

3. The 70 years of the fasts, from the fall of Jerusalem to the 5th year 

of Darius, B.C. 586-517. 

The first period of the 70 years' servitude enables us to bridge the gulf 
between the 1st year of Evil-merodach and the 1st year of Cyrus. Here we have 
the names of some of the monarchs who reigned during these years, Evil- 
merodach, Darius the Mede and Belshazzar, but not the number of the years 
they reigned, and consequently no connected, continuous Chronology. The 
Chronology, is however, given in the Babylonian clay tablets, the true inter- 
pretation of which is in entire agreement with the Chronology of the Old 
Testament. 

The second period of the 70 years' indignation enables us to bridge the 
gulf between the 3rd year of Cyrus and the 2nd year of Darius. 

The third period of the 70 years of the fasts duplicates and corroborates 
the Chronology of the second period of 70 years. Here again we have the names 
of the monarchs who reigned during these years, Cyrus, Ahasuerus and Arta- 
xerxes, but not the number of the years they reigned, and consequently no 
continuous, connected Chronology. 

In either case the gulf is bridged over and the chronological connection 
is maintained by means of these long numbers. 

Cyrus. 

We now resume the connected chronological study of the years from the 
1st year of Cyrus, B.C. 536. 

In this year, as we learn from Ezra 3 1_ 3 , Cyrus issued his proclamation. He 
was now the undisputed master of " all the Kingdoms of the earth." That 
implies that the joint sway of the Medes and Persians, or the Co-Rexship of 
Cyrus with Darius the Mede, was now over. This agrees with the date B.C. 536 
as that of Cyrus' sole Kingship, and B.C. 538 as that of his conquest of Babylon 
and the beginning of the joint rule of Cyrus the military, and Darius the civil 
head of the Medo-Persian Empire, from B.C. 538 to B.C. 536. 

It is clear from Ez. 1 2 that Cyrus was acquainted with the prophecy of 
Is. 44 28 -45 13 , which may have been pointed out to him by Daniel, since 
Daniel was in a position of high authority at Shushan, in the province of Elam, 
in the 3rd year of Belshazzar, B.C. 539 (Dan. 8 1 ), where he attended to the 
King's business (Dan. 8 27 ). 

Again, when Belshazzar was slain, and Darius the Mede received the King- 
dom, B.C. 538, Daniel was set over the three presidents who were set over 
the 120 princes of the whole Kingdom (Dan. 5 30 -6 2 ). He continued to 
prosper, both in the reign of Darius, B.C. 538-536, and also in the reign of 
Cyrus, B.C. 536 (Dan. 1 2 1 and 6 2 8 ). Finally, he lived on to the 3rd year of Cyrus, 
B.C. 534 (Dan. 10 1 ), in which he had his vision of the man clothed in white and 
the revelation of the " scripture of truth" (Dan. io 21 -i2 13 ). 



238 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



Further details respecting the proclamation or the decree of Cyrus are 
given in Ezra 5 13-15 and Ezra 6 3_5 . From these passages we learn that when 
he delivered the sacred vessels to Sheshbazzar he made him Pekah or governor 
of Judah, and that the foundations of the House were to be strongly laid, " the 
height thereof 6o cubits and the breadth thereof 6o cubits ; With three rows 
of great stones and a row of new timber : " at the King's expense. 

From Ez. 5 16 we learn that this same Sheshbazzar did actually lay the 
foundation of the House, and since the foundation of the House was laid by 
the hands of Zerubbabel (Zech. 4 9 ), this identifies Sheshbazzar with Zerubbabel, 
whilst the date of the foundation laying — the 24th day of the 9th month of 
the 2nd year of Darius — is given in Haggai 2 10, 15- 18, 20 . 

Thus the builders were hindered, and their plans thwarted, by the opposition 
of the Samaritans, for a period of 15 years from the 2nd year of Cyrus to the 
2nd year of Darius. 

In Ezra 2 1-70 we have a list of the families of the 42,360 captives who 
returned with Zerubbabel. This list afterwards fell into the hands of Nehemiah, 
many details therein having been meanwhile revised and corrected, or brought 
up to date, whilst the total, 42,360, remained unaltered and unrevised. The 
revised list is given in Neh. 7 s-73 . 

Amongst the leaders of the people who returned with Zerubbabel and 
Jeshua in the 1st year of Cyrus, we find (Ezra 2 2 ) the names of Nehemiah, 
Seraiah (alternatively called Azariah, Neh. 7 7 , and possibly identical with 
Ezra) and Mordecai. 

There is no reason why these three should not be identified with the 
well known Nehemiah the Tirshatha (Neh. 8 9 ), Ezra the priest the scribe 
(Neh. 8 s ), and Mordecai of the Book of Esther. 

These three men take first rank. They stand at the very head of the list 
of the exiles who returned with Zerubbabel and Jeshua, and the prominence 
given to them in the narrative of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther is quite in accord 
with the position assigned to them here. 

It is only the mistaken identification of the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah with 
Artaxerxes Longimanus (b.c. 464-424) instead of with Darius Hystaspes 
(b.c. 521-485), and by consequence the mistaken date assigned to Nehemiah 
that has led to the distinguishing of the Nehemiah of the first year of Cyrus 
(Ezra 2 2 , 7 7 ) from Nehemiah the cupbearer and the Tirshatha of Neh. i 11 
and 8 9 . 

And it is only the mistaken identification of the Ahasuerus of Esther with 
Xerxes (b.c. 485-465) instead of with Darius Hystaspes (b.c. 521-485), that has 
led to the distinguishing of the Mordecai of the first year of Cyrus (Ezra 2 2 and 
Neh. 7 7 ), from the Mordecai of the Book of Esther, and the torturing of the 
passage in Esther 2 5 * 6 to make it mean that Kish was carried away with 
Jeconiah, instead of what it really does say, which is, that Mordecai was carried 
away with Jeconiah (b.c. 597). 

From Ezra 3 1-6 we learn that on the 1st day of the 7th month of the 1st 
year of Cyrus the people gathered together as one man, to Jerusalem. 
Zerubbabel and Jeshua built an altar and offered burnt offerings, but the 
foundation of the House was not yet laid. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



Ezra 3 7 proceeds to tell us how the materials were being prepared for 
the building of the Temple, in accordance with the grant of Cyrus. 

From Ezra 3 8 ' 9 , we learn that in the 2nd year of their coming to the house 
of God at Jerusalem, which was the 2nd year of Cyrus, Zerubbabel and Jeshua 
began to set forward the work of the house of the Lord. 

Then follows a paragraph, Ezra 3 10 " 13 , which needs careful scrutiny, for 
it is proleptic or anticipatory. The word " when " at the beginning of 
verse 10 should be doubly underlined, and we should be careful to note that 
it is " when " and not " then/' It tells us that when the builders laid 
the foundation of the House, viz. not now in the 2nd year of Cyrus, B.C. 535, 
but 15 years later on, in the 2nd year of Darius, B.C. 520 (see Haggai 2 10, 
15. is. 2 some "wept with a loud voice, and many shouted aloud for joy." 

Then comes the explanation and the reason for this delay of 15 years, 
an explanation which occupies the whole of chapter 4. 

The Samaritans troubled them, and hired counsellors to frustrate them 
all the days of Cyrus, and until the reign of Darius King of Persia (Darius 
Hystaspes) . 

The narrative then goes on to give a detailed account of this opposition, 
and to specify the names of the Kings between Cyrus and Darius, during 
whose reigns it was maintained. But before leaving the reign of Cyrus, one 
other event took place which must be inserted here in proper chronological order. 

In the 3rd year of Cyrus (Dan. 10 x ) Daniel, after 3 weeks' mourning 
(Dan. 10 2 ), perhaps on account of this Samaritan opposition to the building 
of the Temple for which he had so earnestly prayed (Dan. 9 17 ), had a vision 
of a man in white from whom he received the revelation contained in " the 
scripture of truth" (Dan. io 5 " 21 ). " Behold there shall yet stand up three 
Kings in Persia " after the present King, (1) Cyrus, viz. (2) Ahasuerus 
(Cambyses), (3) Darius Hystaspes and (4) Xerxes ; and the fourth (Xerxes) 
" shall be far richer than they all ; and by his strength through his riches 
he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia " (Dan. 11 2 ), a prediction 
which refers to the mighty host of 1,800,000 men, with which, as Herodotus 
tells us, Xerxes crossed the Hellespont, and which he led to disastrous defeat, 
at Thermopylae and Salamis, in the year B.C. 480. 

From this vision of Daniel in the 3rd year of Cyrus, we return to the story 
of the Samaritan opposition to the building of the Temple, detailed in 
Ezra 4 6 - 24 . 

Ahasuerus = Cambyses. 

From Ezra 4 6 we learn that in the reign of Ahasuerus (Cambyses, B.C. 
529-522, the son and successor of Cyrus), the Samaritans wrote an 
accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. 

Artaxerxes = Pseudo-Smerdis. 

From Ezra 4 7 ~ 2 4 we learn that in the days of Artaxerxes (Pseudo-Smerdis) , 
Bishlam, Mithredath and Tabeel wrote to Artaxerxes, King of Persia 
(Pseudo-Smerdis), and also thatRehum and Shimshei wrote against Jerusalem 
to Artaxerxes the King (Pseudo-Smerdis). 



240 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



This Pseud o-Smerdis was the usurper who seized upon the throne of 
Cambyses during his absence in Egypt, B.C. 522. He was aided by his brother 
Patizithes. The two brothers were called the Magi. They occupied the 
throne for 7 months, after which they were slain by Darius Hystaspes. 

In this letter they refer to " the Kings," Ezra 4 13 , not to " the King," 
which agrees very well with the fact that the false Smerdis was really placed 
on the throne by his brother Patizithes, one of the chief of the Magians, 
whose authority was quite equal to that of Pseudo-Smerdis, whence the two 
are coupled together, and this reign or usurpation is often referred to as that 
of the two Magi or Magians, both being regarded as in a manner sharers of 
the same throne. 

The word " Kings " occurs in the plural again in the King's reply, " Cause 
these men to cease. Why should damage grow to the hurt of the Kings?" 
(Ezra 4 22 ). 

On receiving the letter of King Artaxerxes (Pseudo-Smerdis), Rehum, 
Shimshei and their companions, went in haste to Jerusalem and made them 
cease by force and power (Ezra 4 2 3 ). So it ceased until the second year of the 
reign of Darius King of Persia (Ezra 4 24 ). 

This last verse cannot be torn from its immediate connection with the 
preceding verses respecting Artaxerxes. It proves, therefore, that this 
Artaxerxes was King of Persia before Darius Hystaspes. 

The passage Ezra 4 6-2 3 cannot, therefore, be an episodical illustration 
referring to a later opposition in the days of Xerxes and Artaxerxes 
Longimanus, though many modern scholars advocate that interpretation 
of it. 

Nothing can be plainer than the fact that the writer of the passage 
represents Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes as Kings of Persia, who reigned between 
the time of Cyrus and that of Darius Hystaspes, and since no other Kings 
but Cambyses and the false Smerdis did reign between Cyrus and Darius 
Hystaspes, it must follow that none but Cambyses and the false Smerdis 
are intended. 

Darius, Artaxerxes, or Ahasuerus = Darius Hystaspes. 

We have now reached the 2nd year of Darius Hystaspes, B.C. 520. 

The years of Darius are not reckoned on the Jewish and Assyrian method, 
from the 1st of Nisan, and not on the Egyptian method of Ptolemy's Canon, 
from the variable New Year's Day of the vague Egyptian year, but on the 
Aryan or English method, from the day of his accession, which was somewhere 
on or about the 25th day of the 9th month of the year B.C. 521. 

Hence the 10th, nth, and 12th months of the 2nd year of Darius precede 
the remaining months of the year, and the true beginning of the prophecies 
of Zechariah is Zech. 1 7 , as anyone who reads the verse will see, whilst Zech. 
1 1-6 is really later, and has been placed before Zech. 1 7 by mistake, because 
it was wrongly supposed that the 8th month of the year preceded the nth 
month. A comparison of all the dates of the reign of Darius will show this. 
It is also seen from a comparison of Neh. 1 1 withNeh. 2 l , where the nth month 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



241 



(Chisleu) precedes the 1st month (Nisan) of the same 20th year of this same 
Darius Hystaspes, who is there called Artaxerxes. 

Following this, the true chronological order of the events, we reach next the 
prophecy of Zech. 1 7_ 1 2 , from which we learn, that on the 24th day of the nth 
month of the 2nd year of Darius, the angel enquires of Jehovah, " How long 
wilt thou not have mercy upon Jerusalem . . . against which thou hast had 
indignation these seventy years," to which Jehovah replies, "lam returned 
to Jerusalem with mercies, my house shall be built in it" (Zech. i 16 ). 

From Haggai i 1 14 and 2 21 , we learn that Zerubbabel was still Pekah, 
or governor of Judah in this year ; from Ezra 5 1 and Hag. 1 1_4 , that on the 
1st day of the 6th month of the 2nd year of Darius, Haggai prophesied and 
reproached the people for living in ceiled houses whilst the house of God lay 
waste ; and from Ezra 5 2 and Hag. 1 1 5 , that on the 24th day of the 6th month 
of the 2nd year of Darius, Zerubbabel and Jeshua bestirred themselves and 
did work in the house of God. But the house appeared insignificant, in 
comparison with the former Temple built by Solomon. " Who saw this 
house in its first glory ? " exclaims the prophet Haggai, on the 21st day 
of the 7th month of the 2nd year of Darius. He then declares that the glory 
of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former (Hag. 2 1_ 9 ) . 

Next, in order of time, comes the prophecy of Zech. i 1-6 , a prophecy of 
the 8th month of the 2nd year of Darius, in which Zechariah pleads with the 
people not to be as their fathers, who would not listen to the former Prophets, 
but to turn to the Lord of Hosts, Who would then turn to them. 

It is at this juncture that the foundation of the Temple is laid, on the 
24th day of the 9th month of the 2nd year of Darius (Hag. 2 10, 15, 18> 20 ), and 
when the foundation of the house was laid, the ancient men that had seen 
the first house wept or sang for joy as we read in Ezra 3 1 0-1 3 . That, 
however, was not in the 2nd year of Cyrus, but in the 2nd year of Darius. 

In Zech. 4 6-10 we read how Zechariah encouraged the people to persevere 
with the work in spite of the tremendous difficulties which they experienced 
in doing it. " Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit saith the Lord. 
Who art thou, O great mountain ? Before Zerubbabel thou shalt become 
a plain, and he shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying 
Grace, Grace unto it . . . The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation 
of this house, his hands shall also finish it." 

Then comes the visit of Tatnai, the Pekah of the country west of the 
Euphrates, and Shetharboznai, and their enquiry, " Who commanded you 
to build this house and to make up this wall ? " from which we see that they 
were building both the house and the wall at the same time (Ezra 5 3 ) . 

" But the eye of God was on the elders, that they could not cause them 
to cease till the matter came to Darius " (Ezra 5 5 ) . The same language is found 
in Zech. 3 9 and 4 10 , " Upon one stone shall be seven eyes . . . they are the 
eyes of the Lord which run to and fro through the whole earth." 

A copy of Tatnai and Shetharboznai's letter to Darius is given in Ezra 
5 6 " 17 . His reply follows in Ezra 6 1-12 , Let the work of this house alone, 
and let the Pekah of the Jews build it. 

That is all that belongs to the 2nd year of Darius. Our next note of time 
Q 



242 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



is found in the Book of Esther, " In the 3rd year of the reign of Ahasuerus." 
That the Ahasuerus of Esther is Darius Hystaspes and no other — although 
as Kitto says, " Almost every Medo-Persian King from Cyaxares I (b.c. 611- 
571) to Artaxerxes III Ochus (b.c. 358-338), has in turn been advanced as 
the Ahasuerus of Esther" — is abundantly clear, and would never have been 
doubted but for the misdating of the events of the Persian period, and the 
mistaken notion that the same Persian monarch could not be described by 
two or three different names. 

" This is (that) Ahasuerus which reigned from India even unto Ethiopia 
over 127 provinces" (Esther i 1 ). Darius Hystaspes invaded and conquered 
India B.C. 506 (Herodotus, Books 3 and 4). Darius inherited the conquests of 
his predecessor Cambyses, in Egypt and Ethiopia ; all Egypt submitted to 
Cambyses in the 5th year of his reign, B.C. 525, and he subdued the Ethiopians 
(Herodotus, Book 3). 

" And King Ahasuerus laid a tribute upon the land and upon the Isles 
of the Sea " (Est. 10 1 ). The Fleet of Darius took Samos, Chios and Lesbos, 
and the rest of the Islands, in the year B.C. 496 (Herodotus, Book 6) . Herodotus 
gives a list of the nations which paid tribute to Darius Hystaspes in his history, 
Book 3, Chapters 89-97. These include Egypt and India, the Island of Cyprus 
and the Islands of the Erythraean Sea. After adding up the total, Herodotus 
says, " Later on in his reign the sum was increased by the tribute of the Islands 
and of the nations of Europe as far as Thessaly " (Herodotus, Book 3, Chap. 
96). Amongst the peoples who paid no settled tribute, but brought gifts to 
Darius Hystaspes, he mentions " The Ethiopians bordering upon Egypt, 
who were reduced by Cambyses " (Herodotus, Book 3, Chap. 97). 

Susa or Shushan was built by Darius Hystaspes (Pliny vi, 27) or rather 
embellished with magnificent palaces by him (Elian, De Animal, xiii, 59). 
It was there that he resided and kept all his treasures (Herodotus, v, 49). 

Thucydides (Book 1) and Plato (Menexenus) tell us that Darius Hystaspes 
subdued all the Islands in the iEgean Sea, and Diodorus Siculus (Book 12) 
tells us that they were all lost again by his son Xerxes before the 12th year 
of his reign, but it was after the 12th year of the reign of Ahasuerus that he 
imposed his tribute upon the Isles, and the successors of Xerxes held none 
of them except Clazomene and Cyprus (Xenophon, Hellenics, Book 5). 

From all which it is clear that the Ahasuerus of Esther cannot be Xerxes, 
in fact that he can be none other than Darius Hystaspes, for his predecessors 
Cyrus and Cambyses never took tribute but only received presents. Poh'enus 
(Stratagem, Book 7) says Darius was the first that ever imposed a tribute 
upon the people. For this reason Herodotus tells us (Book 3, Chap. 89) the 
Persians called Cyrus a father, and Cambyses a master, but Darius koltttjXov, 
a huckster, " for Darius looked to making a gain in everything." 

Evidently Haman knew the weakness of his master, when he offered to 
pay him 10,000 talents of silver for his pogram or massacre of the Jews (Est. 3 9 ). 
Esther touches the same spring when she hints at the damage which the 
King's revenue would suffer if the pogram were carried into effect (Est. y 4 ). 
And in Est. 10 1 we have the direct mention of the fact that " he laid a tribute 
upon the land and upon the Isles of the Sea." 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



243 



In the Apocryphal Books the Ahasuerus of Esther, and the Artaxerxes 
of Ezra 7 1 , are both identified with Darius Hystaspes. In 1 Esdras 3 1# 2 r 
we read, " Now when Darius reigned he made a great feast unto all his subjects 
and unto all his household, and unto all the princes of Media and Persia,, 
and to all the governors and captains, and lieutenants that were under him,, 
from India to Ethiopia, in the 127 provinces." This is word for word from 
Est. i 1-3 , with the name Ahasuerus, replaced by the name Darius who is 
afterwards identified with Darius Hystaspes, in whose sixth year the Temple 
was completed (1 Esdras 6 5 , Ez. 6 15 ). 

In the Rest of the chapters of the Book of Esther, and in the LXX. through- 
out, Ahasuerus is everywhere called Artaxerxes. It was Artaxerxes whom 
Bigthan and Teresh sought to lay hands on (Rest of Esther 12 1,2 )« It was 
the great King Artaxerxes who wrote " to the princes and governors 
who were under him from India unto Ethiopia, in 127 provinces (Rest of 
Esther 13 1 ). 

Archbishop Ussher was a profoundly well read scholar, and he identifies 
Darius Hystaspes with Artaxerxes, and with Ahasuerus, and this is in entire 
agreement with everything contained in the Old Testament, and with all 
trustworthy ancient testimony. 

But since Scaliger, the first modern Chronologer, introduced the new fangled 
notion that Ahasuerus must be Xerxes, most modern scholars have adopted 
his error, which rests on no more substantial ground than that of philological 
conjecture, and supposed congruity of character. 

Having thus cleared the ground by removing those erroneous presuppositions 
which make the understanding of the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther 
impossible, for these never can be understood until we realize that Darius 
Hystaspes, the Artaxerxes of Ezra and Nehemiah, and the Ahasuerus of 
Esther are one and the same person, we proceed with the Chronology, which 
we have already brought down to the 3rd year of Darius Hystaspes, the 
Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther. 

In Esther 1 1_ 5 we read that Ahasuerus, that is Darius Hystaspes, made 
a feast to all his princes, the power of Persia and Media, which lasted for 
six months, like the visit of the Colonial celebrities who attended Queen 
Victoria's Diamond Jubilee. 

We note " Persia and Media " are coupled together in this order, now 
that the Persian Empire has been established. Before, in the time of Daniel, 
it was the " Medes and Persians." The feast of six months was followed 
by a feast of 7 days to the people of Shushan ; on the last day of this feast 
Vashti refused to appear before the King, and was divorced. 

Next, we have two notices of events that took place in the 4th year of 
Darius Hystaspes. 

In Zech. 7 1 we read that on the 4th day of the 9th month of the 4th year 
of Darius, Zechariah replied to the deputation from Bethel, Sharezer and 
Regem-melech, who wished to know whether they should continue to fast 
in the 5th and the 7th month as they would have done for a period of 70 years 
from the fall of Jerusalem, B.C. 586, in the ensuing year, B.C. 517. 

It is not clear whether the deputation came from Bethel (translated in 



244 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



the A.V. house of God) on the border of Judea, or from a place or a person 
named Bethel living in Babylon. 

Zechariah's reply was a challenge. Were they sincere when they fasted 
these 70 years ? (Zech. 7 s ), and later on (Zech. 8 19 ) he declared that all their 
fasts should be joy and gladness and cheerful feasts. 

Darius is believed to have executed the Behistun Inscription about the 
5th year of his reign, though some portion of it was perhaps added a little 
later. In this wonderful rock Inscription he records the fact that during 
the first five or six years of his reign he reconquered all the revolted provinces 
of the Persian Empire (Elam, Susiana, Sagartia, Media, Babylonia, Parthia, 
Armenia, etc.), and overthrew all the nine pretenders to his throne, including 
(1) Gomates, the Pseudo-Smerdis, the Magian who claimed to be the brother 
of Cambyses, and who occupied the throne for a period of 7 months ; (2) a 
Nidinta-Bel, who called himself Nebuchadnezzar II, the son of Nabonidus, 
and claimed to be the King of Babylon ; (3) Phraortes, who said he was the 
son of Cyaxares, and claimed to be King of Media ; (4) a second pretender 
who claimed to be Bardis or Smerdis the brother of Cambyses, and several 
others. 

He thus became " Arta-Xerxes " (Great Shah) (Ezra 6 14 , 7 1 , etc.), " King 
of Assyria" (Ezra 6 22 ), " King of Kings" (Ezra 7 12 ), King of Babylon (Neh. 
13 6 ), and master of the entire World-Empire of Persia. 

This accounts for the change of name from Darius to Artaxerxes, which 
we note, when we pass from the events of his 4th to those of his 7th year in 
Ezra 6 12 and 7 1 . 

The change of name which is so puzzling to us, was perfectly well under- 
stood at the time when the Book of Ezra was written, and is thus a proof 
of the contemporaneity of the Record. 

But in order that there might be no mistake about the matter, the writer 
tells us in the most distinct and explicit manner that this Darius is the 
King who was also called Artaxerxes. In Ezra 6 14 he says, " They builded 
and finished it according to the commandment of Cyrus and Darius (even 
Artaxerxes), King of Persia. Two persons, and two only, are named here ; 
two decrees, and two only are specified, and the Hebrew Vav should be 
translated " Darius, even Artaxerxes," not " Darius and Artaxerxes," as 
though a reference were intended to some third decree by some third person, 
a reference which was not in the writer's mind at all. 

The word Artaxerxes is an appellation like Pharaoh. The word Xerxes 
survives to this day. It is the ancient form of the modern " Shah." " Arta " 
signifies great or noble, and " Arta-Xerxes " is the exact equivalent of Darius 
the Great or Xerxes the Great. Similarly the son and successor of Darius 
Hystaspes, Xerxes in his Inscription at Persepolis, calls himself in one sentence 
" Xerxes the great King " and in the next " Darius the King." 

Abraham Zacutus (15th Century A.D.), astronomer to Emanuel, King of 
Portugal, David Ganz of Prague (d. a.d. 1613) and the Sedar Olam Zcuta or 
the Lesser Chronicle of the Jews (Anonymous, a.d. 1123), all tell us that 
" Artaxerxes among the Persians was the common name of their Kings as that 
of Pharaoh was among the Egyptians." 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



245 



It is one and the same Persian King throughout. In Ezra 4 24 we have 
his 2nd year, in Ezra 6 1 5 we have his sixth year, in Ezra 7 1 his 7th year, in 
Nehemiah i 1 and 2 1 his 20th year, and in Neh. 5 14 and 13 6 his 32nd year, 
whilst in the story of Esther, which is an appendix to the Ezra-Nehemiah 
narrative, we have mention of his 3rd, his 6th, his 7th and his 12th years. 
Haggai prophesied in his 2nd year. Zechariah in his 2nd and in his 4th year. 

We now reach the events of the 6th year of Darius Hystaspes, the year 
in which the Temple was finished, on the 3rd day of the 12th month, as we 
learn from Ezra 6 1 5 . 

In the same year Esther was brought to Shushan to the custody of Hegai 
(Est. 2 8-12 ), and a year or so later she was taken to the royal apartments. 
A great feast, Esther's feast, was held in honour of the occasion of her 
marriage, in the 10th month of the 7th year of Ahasuerus, B.C. 515 (Est. 2 16-1 8 ). 

Turning now to Ezra 7 8- 9 we find that on the first day of the first month 
of this same 7th year of Darius, the Temple being now built, Ezra sets out 
from Babylon in order to be present at the ceremony of the opening, or the 
dedication, of the new building, taking with him the sacred vessels and a 
second band of 1,754 exiles. 

Ezra mustered his company and kept a fast at " the river that runneth 
to Ahava," halting there from the 9th to the nth day of the first month of 
the 7th year of Artaxerxes (Ez. 8 15,21 ). On the following day, the 12th day 
of the 1st month of the 7th year of Artaxerxes, Ezra left the river Ahava 
and started off on his 4 months' journey to Jerusalem (Ez. 8 31 ). 

Meanwhile, the children of the captivity kept the Passover and the 
feast of unleavened bread at Jerusalem, from the 14th to the 21st day of the 
1st month of the 7th year of Artaxerxes (Ez. 6 19-21 ). 

About four months later, on the 1st day of the 5th month of the 7th year 
of Artaxerxes, Ezra arrived at Jerusalem (Ez. 7 s , 8 32 ). 

Three days later, on the 4th day of the 5th month of the 7th year of 
Artaxerxes, the sacred vessels were weighed and placed in the newly built 
house of God (Ez. 8 33 ). 

Ezra was grieved at the number of heathen marriages that had been 
contracted, but he thanked God for the House set up, the desolations repaired, 
and the wall given in Judah and Jerusalem. This shows that not only the 
Temple but also the wall had been rebuilt at this time (Ezra 9 9 ) . 

On the 20th day of the 9th month of the 7th year of Artaxerxes, all Judah 
and Jerusalem were gathered together at Jerusalem (Ezra 10 9 ). Ezra ex- 
horted them to confess their sin and separate themselves from their heathen 
wives. 

An Assize was held on the first day of the 10th month (Ez. 10 16 ), the 
matter was gone into, and the Assize was concluded on the 1st day of the 
1st month (Ez. 10 17 ). In neither case is the year mentioned, but if we are 
right in concluding that the years of the King are reckoned as commencing 
on his accession day, on or about the 25th day of the 9th month, these last 
two dates of the Assize would be in the 10th and the 1st months of the 8th 
year of Artaxerxes. 

In the 1st month of the 12th year of Ahasuerus, Haman cast lots to find 



246 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



a lucky day for his massacre of the Jews (Est. 3 7 ). On the 13th day of the 
1st month the posts went out hastened by the King's commandment, with 
the decree for Hainan's Pogram (Est. 3 12 ). On the 15th day of the 1st month 
Esther touched the golden sceptre (Est. 5 1 ' 2 ). At night the King could not 
sleep (Est. 6 1-14 ). On the following day, the 16th day of the 1st month, 
Esther gave her banquet. Haman was accused and hanged, and Mordecai 
was made Premier (Est. 5 8 , 7 2 " 10 ). 

About two months later, on the 23rd day of the 3rd month, the scribes 
were called and letters were sent by horse, mule, camel and dromedary, to 
overtake the posts sent out by Haman, and to give the Jews liberty to defend 
themselves if they were attacked (Est. 8 9 " 14 ). 

Then follows an interval of about 9 months, during which the posts went 
forward till they reached the uttermost limits of Ahasuerus' world-wide Empire. 

On the 13th day of the 12th month, Pogram Day, the Jews defended them- 
selves and slew 500 of their adversaries, who attacked them in Shushan, and 
75,000 in the provinces (Est. 9 1-12 ). On the following day, the 14th day of 
the 12th month, the Jews slew 300 more in Shushan, whilst the Jews in the 
provinces rested and observed this, the 14th day of Adar, as their day for keeping 
the feast of Purim (Est. 9 13 " 27 ). The day after this, the 15th day of the 
12th month, the Jews in Shushan rested and observed this, the 15th day of 
Adar, as their day for keeping the feast of Purim (Est. 9 18 ~ 27 ). 

The next recorded event is found in the opening chapters of Nehemiah, 
and belongs to the 20th year of Darius Hystaspes. There is no record of the 
events that occurred at Jerusalem between the 7th year of Artaxerxes and 
the early months of the following year, except that which is contained in the 
report which Hanani brought to Nehemiah 13 years later, in the month Chisleu, 
the 9th month of the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Neh. i 1 ). 

From this we learn that, whilst nothing is reported respecting the Temple, 
the wall of Jerusalem had been broken down, and the gates thereof burned 
with fire (Neh. I 3 ). 

Ezra probably remained at Jerusalem during this interval of 13 years, 
from the 7th to the 20th year of Artaxerxes, for we find him in active 
co-operation with Nehemiah later on in this same 20th year (Neh. 8 1< 4- 9 , 

I2 2 6. 3 6. 3 8) 

Josephus says that Jeshua the high priest died and was succeeded by his 
son Joiakim, about the time that Ezra came to Jerusalem, in the 7th year 
of the Persian monarch who is called Artaxerxes in Ezra, but whom Josephus 
calls Xerxes (yet another name for Darius Hystaspes). He adds, later on, 
that Joiakim died, and was succeeded in the high priesthood by his son 
Eliashib, about the time that Ezra died. 

This is quite in accord with what we read in the Books of Ezra and 
Nehemiah. It is true that Eliashib is called the high priest in the 20th year 
of Artaxerxes (Neh. 3 1,20 ). He may have been called " Eliashib the high 
priest " without having been high priest at tliat time, but more probably 
his father Joiakim was an aged man, and Eliashib was acting high priest 
during his lifetime, just as Annas and Caiaphas were both high priests in 
the time of our Lord (Luke 3 2 , " Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests "). 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



247 



This is corroborated by the fact that Joiakim had a grandson Johanan, 
the son of Eliashib, old enough to have a chamber in the house of God in the 
7th year of Artaxerxes, B.C. 515, when Ezra returned to Jerusalem (Ezra 10 6 ). 

It is supported by the statement of Neh. 12 26 , which makes the days 
of Joiakim either immediately anterior to, or else contemporary with 
the days of Nehemiah the governor and of Ezra the priest the scribe. 

It is also supported by the list of the men who were " priests, the chief 
of the fathers in the days of Joiakim " (Neh. 12 12-21 ). 

Two lists are given here. The first is identical with the list of the priests 
who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel (Neh 12 1_7 ) except that we have 
here only 21 names instead of 22, the name of Hattush, No. 6, being omitted. 
The second list is the list of their eldest sons who succeeded them, either on 
their death, or on their becoming too aged to discharge the duties of their 
office in the days of Joiakim, i.e. immediately before, or else during the days 
of Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh. 12 26 ), which of course carries us on to the 
20th, or possibly to the 32nd year of Artaxerxes, B.C. 502-490. This list 
contains only 20 names, the eldest son of Miniamin, No. 13 } being omitted. 

The two lists are as follows : — 



Fathers, 

Priests who returned with Zerubbabel 
and Jeshua. Neh. 12 1 " 7 and 12 ~ 21 . 

1. Seraiah. 

2. Jeremiah. 

3. Ezra. 

4. Amariah. 



Eldest sons. 
Priests in the days of Joiakim the 



5. Melicu 

6. Hattush (omitted Neh 

7. Shebaniah. 

8. Harim. 

9. Meraioth. 

10. Iddo. 

11. Ginnethon. 

12. Abijah. 

13. Miniamin. 

14. Moadiah. 

15. Bilgai 

16. Shemaiah. 

17. Joiarib. 

18. Jedaiah. 

19. Sallai. 

20. Amok. 

21. Hilkiah 

22. Jedaiah. 



son of Jeshua. 

Meraiah. 

Hananiah. 

Meshullam. 

Jehohanan. 

Jonathan. 



Neh. 12 12 - 21 . 



12 



? 12-2 



Joseph. 

Adna. 

Helkai. 

Zechariah. 

Meshullam. 

Zichri. 



Piltai. 

Shammua. 

Jehonathan. 

Mattenai. 

Uzzi. 

Kallai. 

Eber. 

Hashabiah. 
Nethaneel. 



The 22 men in this first list returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel and 



Jeshua in the 1st year of Cyrus, B.C. 536 (Neh. 12 



l-7\ 



Fifteen of them sealed 



248 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



the covenant with Nehemiah in the 20th year of Artaxerxes, B.C. 502, the remain- 
ing 7 having probably died during the intervening 34 years. The 20 men in 
the second list succeeded them, " in the days of Joiakim " the son of Jeshua 
(Neh. 12 12 " 21 ), whose days are either identical with, or else immediately 
anterior to, the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, B.C. 502-490 (Neh. 12 26 ). See 
Vol. II, p. 53. 

Nehemiah was grieved to hear Hanani's distressing report respecting the 
condition of affairs at Jerusalem (Neh. i 4 ). He turned to God in prayer 
and waited his opportunity. 

Four months later, in the month Nisan, the 1st month in the 20th year 
of Artaxerxes, that opportunity came. 

But here arises one of the most perplexing problems in the Chronology 
of this period. 

The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah are not two Books, but two parts of one 
and the same Book. They were never divided up into two, till this was 
done by Origen, the learned and distinguished Textual Critic, who was also 
unfortunately, the innovating Higher Critic, of the 3rd Century a.d. 

The last note of time in Ezra is connected with the 7th year of Artaxerxes, 
and it is quite certain that the 20th year of the opening verse of Nehemiah 
refers to the 20th year of the reign of Artaxerxes. This was in Chisleu, 
the 9th month. But when we come to Neh. 2 1 we are still in the 20th year of 
Artaxerxes, although in the meantime we have passed over a New Year's Day. 

The problem, then, is to ascertain from what point in the " sequence of 
the months " the years of the King's reign are reckoned, or on what day of 
the year the reckoning passes from the last day of one year to the New Year's 
Day of another. 

The method of reckoning adopted is not the Hebrew method, for with 
them New Year's Day is always the 1st day of Nisan, and the first of Nisan 
following the 9th month of the 20th year of Artaxerxes would have been in 
the 21st year of Artaxerxes. 

The method of reckoning adopted is not the Assyrian method, for with 
them also New Year's Day is always the 1st day of Nisan. 

The method of reckoning adopted is not that of the vague Egyptian or 
Chaldean year of Ptolemy's Canon, the 365-day year, whose New Year's 
Day or 1st Thoth, or as we should say 1st January, fell back one day every 
4 years, and travelled the entire circle of the four seasons in the course of the 
Sothic cycle of 1,460 years, for in the 20th of Artaxerxes, B.C. 502, the 1st 
Thoth or New Year's Day of the Egyptian or Chaldean year was on December 
27th, and December was the 10th month, so that in passing from the 9th 
month Chisleu to the 1st month Nisan, a New Year would have been entered. 

The same would hold good if this Artaxerxes were identified with Longi- 
manus, for in his 20th year, B.C. 445, the 1st Thoth of the Egyptian or Chaldean 
year was December 12th. 

The New Year did not begin with the summer solstice, about the 21st 
day of the 4th month, for the 1st day of the 1st month, and the 1st day of the 
5th month of Artaxerxes, were both in the same 7th year of Artaxerxes 
(Ezra 7 7 ' 9 ). 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



249 



The New Year did not begin with the autumnal Equinox, about the 21st 
day of the 7th month, for the 6th, 7th and 9th months are all in the same 
2nd year of Darius (Hag. i 1 , 2 1 - 10 ). 

The New Year did not begin at the winter solstice, about the 21st day of 
the 10th month, for some part of the 9th month, and the following 1st month 
were both in one and the same 20th year of Artaxerxes (Neh. i 1 , 2 1 ). 

And it has already been shown that the New Year did not begin at the 
spring Equinox or about the 1st Nisan. 

The solution probably lies in the fact that the Persians, being like our- 
selves, members of the Aryan or Japhetic, and not members of the Semitic 
race, reckoned as we do, and in that case the years of the King's reign would 
be reckoned not by calendar years, as with the Jews and the Assyrians, but 
from the day on which the King ascended the throne. Or, it may be that 
New Year's Day was immediately connected with the day on which the 
foundation of the Temple was laid, viz. the 24th day of the 9th month of 
the 2nd year of Darius (Haggai 2 18 ). 

The data supplied by the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Haggai and 
Zechariah, require, and are satisfied with, a New Year's Day commencing 
sometime after the 24th day of the 9th month (about Nov. 24th), because 
the 24th day of the 9th month was in the same year as the 1st day of the sixth 
month (Hag. i 1 , 2 10 ), and sometime before the last day of the 9th month, 
(Nov. 30th) because some part of the 9th month was in the same 20th year 
of Artaxerxes as the succeeding 1st month. 

The years of the reign of Darius Hystaspes, or Artaxerxes, or Ahasuerus, 
then, begin somewhere between the 24th and the 30th day of the 9th month 
of the year. 

If this be so, then the 24th day of the nth month of the 2nd year of 
Darius precedes the 8th month of the 2nd year of Darius, and the prophecy 
of Zech. 1 7 , which reads as if it were the opening verse of the Book, precedes 
Zech. 1 1 . 

It is difficult to understand why the fact that Zechariah was the son of 
Berechiah, the son of Iddo, should be repeated in Zech. 1 7 , if this verse were 
not originally the first verse of his Book of prophecy, the present arrangement 
being that of some critic who thought that the 8th month must necessarily 
precede the nth month of the 2nd year of Darius. 

The following is a complete list of the dated events of the reign of Darius 
Hystaspes — Artaxerxes = Ahasuerus, as given in the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah 
and Esther. His accession day is between the 25th and the 30th day of the 
9th month. 



250 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



Dated events of the Reign of Darius Hystaspes = Artaxerxes = Ahasuerus. 



.1 J Guy * JlUllUl. J_ V-/ CXi L . 1 V 1 1 1 ^ . 


T? p-fp-rcri cp 


Event. 


24 11 2 Darius 

1 6 2 „ 
24 6 2 ,, 
21 7 2 
— 8 2 
24 9 2 


Zech. 1 7 
Hag. i» 
Hag. 1 1 5 
Hag. 2 1 
Zech. 1 1 
Hag. 2 1 0 


70 years' indignation completed. 
Zerubbabel, Pekah in Judah. 
Zerubbabel bestirred himself. 
The glory of the latter house. 
Zechariah appeals for repentance. 
Foundation of the House laid. 


— ■ — ■ 3 Ahasuerus 


Est. 1 1- 6 


Ahasuerus' feast. Vashti deposed. 


494 Darius 


Zech. 7 1 


Zechariah on 70 years' fasts. 


— - — -6 Ahasuerus 
3 12 6 Darius 

14 1 — „ 


Est. 2 8 - 16 
Ezra 6 1 5 
Ezra 6 1 9 


Esther brought to Shushan. 

Temple finished. 

Passover observed at Jerusalem. 


— ■ 10 7 Ahasuerus 
117 Artaxerxes 

9 17 
12 1 7 

15 7 
4 5 7 
20 9 — 


Est. 2 16 - 18 .. 
Ezra 7 9 
8 1 5 - 2 1 

8 31 

7 9 
8 33 

IO 9 


Esther's marriage and feast. 
Ezra left Babylon. 
Ezra halted 3 days at Ahava. 
Ezra left river of Ahava. 
Ezra arrived at Jerusalem. 
Vessels weighed in Temple. 
All Judah at Jerusalem. 


1 10 — • „ 
1 1 — ■ 


IO 16 

10 17 


Assize (heathen wives) begun. 
Assize (heathen wives) ended. 


— ■ 1 12 Ahasuerus 
13 1 — 

15 1 — 

16 1 — 

23 3 — 


Est. 3 7 

2 1 2 

3 

5 8 

8 9 - 1 4 


Haman casts lots for Massacre. 
Haman's posts went out. 
Esther touches golden sceptre. 
Esther's banquet.' 
Mordecai's posts went out. 


13 12 — 

14 12 — 

1 5 12 — „ 


9 1_ 1 2 

9 1 5 " 2 7 . . 

9 1 8- 2 7 


Massacre day, 500 +75,000 slain. 
300 slain, 14th Adar, 1st Purim. 
15th Adar. 2nd Purim. 


— 9 20 Artaxerxes 

— 1 20 „ 
25 6 — 

17 — 

27 — 

15 7 — 

21 7 — ■ 

22 7 — 
24 7 — 


Neh. 1 1 
2 1 
6 1B 
8 2 
8 13 

8 14 - 18 .. 
8 18 
8 18 
9 12 


Hanani's report. 

Nehemiah sent to Jerusalem. 

Wall finished in 52 days. 

Ezra reads the Law. 

They read of dwelling in booths. 

1st day of feast of Tabernacles. 

7th day of feast of Tabernacles. 

Day of solemn assembly. 

Heathen wives put away. 


— ■ — 32 Artaxerxes 


5 14 , 13 6 


Nehemiah returned to Babylon. 



These are the data supplied from the Old Testament. It would be 
interesting to compare them with information from other sources respecting 
the Persian method of reckoning the years of their Kings. The Behistun 
Inscription contains the days and the months, but not the years of Darius' 
reign, except in one place, and there the figure cannot be read. The other 
Persian Inscriptions give us no information on the subject. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 251 



There is a suggestive little touch in Neh. 2 6 which favours the identification 
of Artaxerxes with Ahasuerus, the husband of Esther. Nehemiah mentions 
in a parenthesis the fact that Artaxerxes' wife was sitting by him when he 
preferred his request. This agrees very well with the fact that Esther was 
the wife of King Ahasuerus, otherwise Artaxerxes, otherwise Darius Hystaspes. 

No doubt Nehemiah had already been in communication with her on the 
subject, and no doubt, also, she had something to do with the favour shown 
by Artaxerxes to the Jews in the 7th year of his reign, when he gave Ezra 
the liberal commission contained in his letter of Ezra 7 1 2 ~ 2 6 . 

The building of the wall described so minutely in Neh. 3, was not the 
building of a new wall, but the repair of an old one. It is so described 
throughout. The wall was broken down, and the gates were burned with 
fire (Neh. i 3 ), but parts of it were still standing, and it only needed repair. 
The word " repaired " occurs in almost every verse in Neh. 3. 

It was a work that could be finished in 52 days (Neh. 6 15 ) and the Temple 
was still standing (Neh. 6 10,11 ). 

Nehemiah was appointed Pekah of the land of Judah from the 20th to 
the 32nd year of Artaxerxes. Here we have another instance of the Aryan 
or English method of reckoning. On the Semitic method of inclusive 
reckoning this period would have been called 13 years, but Nehemiah very 
emphatically points out that it was a period of 12 years. 

In Neh. 7 4 we read that the city was broad on both sides, and great, but 
the people were few and the houses were not builded. This refers not to 
the material dwelling places, but to the people who dwelt in them — as the 
word is used in the phrase " the house and lineage " of David. 

The remark that the houses were not builded leads on to the reproduction 
of the register of the genealogy of those who returned with Zerubbabel in 
the 1st year of Cyrus, some 34 years before (Neh. y 5 ' 73 ). 

On the 1st day of the 7th month, doubtless of this same 20th year of 
Artaxerxes, though the year is not specified (Neh. 8 1 ' 2 ), the people assembled 
at Jerusalem, and sent for Ezra, who had probably been with them during 
the whole of the last 13 years, to bring the Book of the Law. 

On the following day (Neh. 8 13 ) they read that they should dwell in booths 
in the 7th month (Neh. 8 14 ), which accordingly they did (Neh. 8 15 ). 

On the 24th day of the 7th month the seed of Israel separated themselves 
from their heathen wives, they entered into a covenant that they would not 
intermarry with the heathen, nor trade on the Sabbath Day, that they would 
pay their tithes, " and we will not forsake the house of our God " (Neh. 10 2 8 " 39 ). 

The last recorded event in the Old Testament is that contained in the 
paragraph, Neh. 13 4 " 31 . In order to understand it we must first strike out 
the word "had" in the A.V., and in the R.V. translation of Neh. 13 5 . 
Then we read (Neh. 13 4 ), "Before this" — viz. before the revival of 
religion during Nehemiah's 12 years' residence in Jerusalem (b.c. 502-490), as 
described in the previous paragraph (Neh. i2 43 -i3 3 ) — Eliashib was allied 
to Tobiah (Neh. 13 4 6 17 " 18 ). Now, during the revival of religion, i.e. 
during Nehemiah's 12 years' residence in Jerusalem, Eliashib was appointed 
to the oversight of the Temple chambers (Neh. 12 44 ). At this point in the 



252 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



narrative, Nehemiah left Jerusalem in the 32nd year of Artaxerxes, and went 
to Babylon, where he remained during an interval of " certain days," 
probably one year. During this interval seven things happened : — 

1. Eliashib, after Nehemiah had left Jerusalem, desecrated the Temple 

by preparing for Tobiah a great chamber in the courts of the Temple, 
" where aforetime," viz. during the revival of religion, i.e. during 
Nehemiah's 12 years' residence in Jerusalem, they kept the con- 
secrated things. 

2. Tithes ceased to be paid (Neh. 13 10 ). 

3. The house of God was forsaken (Neh. 13 11 ). 

4. The Sabbath was profaned (Neh. 13 15,16 ). 

5. Heathen marriages were contracted (Neh. 13 23 ). 

6. The Jewish language was corrupted by the offspring arising therefrom 

(Neh. 13 24 ). 

7. A son of Joiada, the son of the high priest Eliashib, married a daughter 

of Sanballat (Neh. 13 2 8 ). 

At the end of this interval of " certain days," probably one year, the 
following ten things happened : — 

1. Nehemiah obtained leave of the King, and returned to Jerusalem, 

probably about 2 years after he left there, including the time occupied 
by the journey to Babylon and back, viz. in the year B.C. 488 
(Neh. 13 6 ' 7 ). 

2. He dealt summarily with Tobiah, putting his furniture into the street 

(Neh. 13 6 - 8 ). 

3. He restored the Temple services (Neh. 13 11 J cp. Mai. i 7 ~ 14 ). 

4. He restored the payment of tithes (Neh. 13 12-1 4 cp. Mai. 3 8 ). 

5. He restored the observance of the Sabbath (Neh. I3 17 " 22 ). 

6. He put a stop to heathen marriages (Neh. 1325-27^ C p ]\r a j 2 n-i6j 

7. He chased the son of Joiada from him (Neh. 13 28 ). 

8. He cleansed the priesthood (Neh. 13 29 , cp. Mai. 2 1 " 8 ). 

9. He restored the covenant of the priests and Levites (Neh. 13 29 ). 
10. He appointed the wards of the priests and Levites, everyone in his 

business, and for the offerings (Neh. 13 30 ). 
Four of these items correspond so exactly with the tenor of the prophecy 
of Malachi that we may probably conclude that his prophecy also belongs 
to this period, viz. to the year B.C. 488, so that with the close of Old Testament 
history we date also the close of Old Testament prophecy, viz. in the last year 
of Daniel's seven sevens, B.C. 488, the time appointed for the sealing up of 
vision and prophecy (Dan. 9 24 - 25 ). See Vol. II, Chronological Tables, 
an. hom. 3637. 

The phrase " after certain days " reads in the Hebrew " at the end of days/' 
which probably means " at the end of a year," the word ov:, yamim=days J 
being frequently used to denote this period of time. Compare the following 
passages in which the word occurs : — 

Gen. 4 3 . At the end of days (i.e. at the end of the year) Cain brought 
of the fruit of the land. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



253 



Gen. 27 4 3 - 44 Flee thou to Laban and tarry with him one (cycle) of days 
(i.e. " one year," not as in A.V. and R.V. " a few days "). 

Gen. 29 20 . Jacob served 7 years for Rachel, and they seemed unto 
him as one (cycle) of days (i.e. " as one year," not 
as in A.V. and R.V. " but a few days "). 

1 Sam. 2 19 . The sacrifice of days (i.e. the sacrifice of the year = the 
yearly sacrifice). 

1 Sam. 27 7 . David abode in the city of the Philistines days (Heb.) and 

4 months (i.e. a year and four months). 

2 Sam. 14 2 6 . Absalom polled his head from end of days to end of days 

(i.e. from year to year). 
1 Kings 17 7 . And it came to pass at the end of days (i.e. at the end of 
the year) that the brook dried up. 

These passages show that the proper interpretation of the phrase " at the 
end of days " is " after one year." 

If we allow 4 months for the journey each way, and a year for Nehemiah's 
residence in Babylon, this will bring the narrative of the paragraph, Neh. 
13 7-31 w fth which the Old Testament Record closes, down to the year B.C. 488. 

Genealogical and other Lists of Names in 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. 

Some valuable chronological information is contained in the genealogical 
and other lists in these Books. The list of those who sealed the covenant 
with Nehemiah, in the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Neh. 10 1_13 ) is almost identical 
with the list of those who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel and Jeshua, 
given in Neh. 12 1_9 . 

This is the crowning argument for the identification of the Artaxerxes 
of Nehemiah with Darius Hystaspes. 

Between the 1st of Cyrus and the 20th of Darius Hystaspes was a space 
of 34 years, at the end of which time most of " the priests and Levites that 
went up with Zerubbabel " (Neh. 12 might still be living and able to seal 
the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. 10 1 ). 

But if the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah was Artaxerxes Longimanus, as all 
modern scholars maintain, the length of the time between the 1st of Cyrus 
and the 20th of Artaxerxes Longimanus is 91 years, after which space of time 
20 out of the 30 priests and Levites who returned with Zerubbabel are still 
alive ! 

The argument is absolutely conclusive. It must convince every scholar 
who pays attention to it that the accepted Chronology is impossible. The 
Artaxerxes of Nehemiah reigned at least 32 years (Neh. 5 14 13 6 ), but no other 
Persian monarch except Darius Hystaspes reigned so long within such a space 
of time that 20 out of 30 men, who were old enough to be priests and Levites 
in the 1st of Cyrus, could still be alive in the 20th year of such other Persian 
monarch's reign. 

The lists are as follows : — 



254 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



Priests and Levites who returned 
with Zerubbabel in the ist year of 
Cyrus, B.C. 536. Neh. 12 



1-9 



Priests and Levites who sealed with 
Nehemiah in the 20th year of 
Artaxerxes, B.C. 502. Neh. 10 



1-10 



1. Priests. 



I. 


Seraiah 


Seraiah 


2. 


Jeremiah 


Jeremiah. 


3. 
*j 


Ezra 


(Azariah) . 


4. 


Amariah 


Amariah. 


*j 


Malluch (Melicu) 


(Malchijah) 


6. 


Hattush 


Hattush. 


7. 


Shechaniah (Shebaniah) 


Shebaniah. 


8. 


Rehum (Harim) 


Harim. 


q. 


Meremoth 


Meremoth. 


10. 


Iddo 




II. 


Ginnetho 


Ginnethon. 


12. 


Abijah 


Abijah. 


13. 


Miamin 


Mijamm. 


£ 4- 


Maadiah 


(Maaziah). 


15. 


Bilgah 


Bilgai. 


16. 


Shemaiah 


Shemaiah. 


17. 


Joiarib 




18. 


Jedaiah 




19. 


Sallu (Sallai) 




20. 


Amok 




21. 


Hilkiah 




22. 


Jedaiah 





Neh. 12 7 . " These were the chief 
of the priests and of their 
brethren in the days of Jeshua." 



Neh. 10 8 . " These " (with Zidkijah) > 
Pashur, Malluch, Obadiah, Daniel, 
Baruch and Meshullam) " were the 
priests" that sealed with Nehemiah. 



1. Jeshua. . . 

2. Binnui. . . 

3. Kadmiel. 

4. Sherebiah. 

5. Judah. .. 

6. Mattaniah (over the choirs). 

7. Bakbukiah (over the watches) 

8. Unni. 



Levites. 



Jeshua the son of Azaniah. 
Binnui of the sons of Henadad, 
Kadmiel. 
(Shebaniah). 

(Hodijah, cp. Ezra 2 40 , 3 9 ). 



(and 12 others). 



From these lists it will be seen that out of the 22 men who were the chief 
of the priests in the days of Zerubbabel and Jeshua, 15 were still chief of the 
priests 34 years later, and signed the covenant with Nehemiah. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



255 



Of the 8 Levites who are mentioned as returning with Zerubbabel, 5 are 
mentioned again as signing the covenant with Nehemiah. 

It is quite natural that 20 cut of these 30 men who returned with Zerubbabel 
in the first year of Cyrus (b.c. 536) should be alive 34 years later, in the 20th 
year of Darius Hystaspes (b.c. 502). But it is quite inconceivable that 20 
of them should still be alive 91 years later, in the 20th year of Artaxerxes 
Longimanus (b.c. 445). 

Therefore, the Artaxerxes of Neh. 2 1 , 5 14 and 13 6 cannot be Artaxerxes 
Longimanus, nor can he be any other Persian monarch of later date, 
and as the only Persian monarch of earlier date who reigned as long as 32 
years (Neh. 5 14 , 13 6 ) was Darius Hystaspes, the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah 
2 1 , 5 14 and 13 6 can be no other than Darius Hystaspes himself. 

The succession of the high priests was as follows (1 Chron. 6 3 " 15 , Ezra 3 2 , 
7 1 " 5 , Neh. I2 10 - 11 ) :— 

List of High Priests frctn Aaron to Jaddua: 

1. Aaron. 

2. Eleazer. 

3. Phinehas. 

4. Abishua. 

5. Bukki. 

6. Uzzi. 

7. Zerahiah. 

8. Meraioth. 

9. Amariah I. 

10. Ahitub I. 

11. Zadok I. 

12. Ahimaaz. 

13. Azariah I. 

14. Johanan. 

15. Azariah II, contemporary with Solomon (1 Chron. 6 10 ) B.C. 1023-983. 

16. Amariah II. 

17. Ahitub II. 

18. Zadok II. 

19. Shallum. 

20. Hilkiah, contemporary with Josiah (2 Chron. 34 s ) B.C. 639-608. 

21. Azariah III. 

22. Seraiah. Slain by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25 18-22 ) B.C. 586. 

23. Jehozadak, went into captivity (1 Chron. 6 15 ) B.C. 586. 

24. Joshua, returned with Zerubbabel (Ezra 3 2 ) B.C. 536. 

25. Joiakim, contemp. with Nehemiah and Ezra (Neh. 12 2 6 ) B.C. 515-490. 

26. Eliashib, allied to Tobiah (Neh. 13 4 6 18 ) younger contemporary 

of Nehemiah (Neh. 3 1 , 13 4_5 ) B.C. 502-488. 

27. Joiada. 

28. Jonathan (Johanan). 

29. Jaddua, contemporary with Darius, the last Persian King, who was 

slain by Alexander the Great B.C. 330. 



256 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



These dates given above are the received Ptolemaic dates. All except 
the last (b.c. 330) are probably about 82 years higher than the truth. 

Ezra B.C. (586-490), was the son of Seraiah (No. 22), and the brother of 
Jehozadak (No. 23). Josephus says he died an old man [Antiquities XL 5.5.) 

Johanan the son of Eliashib (Ezra 10 6 ) cannot be certainly identified, but 
he may have been the son of the high priest Eliashib, No. 26 in the above 
list, and a younger contemporary of Ezra. 

The unnamed son of Joiada (No. 27), who married the daughter of San- 
ballat, and was chased by Nehemiah (Neh. 13 28 ), was a younger con- 
temporary of Nehemiah. 

Jaddua was, no doubt, born at the time when his uncle married the daughter 
of Sanballat, and was chased by Nehemiah B.C. 488. This is the last recorded 
event in the history of the Old Testament. 

Jaddua went out from Jerusalem to Sapha to meet Alexander the Great, B.C. 
330. The fact must be accepted, but not the Chronology, which makes him 
488-330 = 158 years old. If the Chronology of the period of the Persian 
Empire from the 1st year of Cyrus, B.C. 536, to the last year of the Darius who 
was slain by Alexander the Great, B.C. 330, is reduced from the 205 years of 
Ptolemy's Canon to the 123 years of Daniel's prophecy, Jaddua's age would 
be reduced by 205-123 = 82 years. This would make him 158-82 = 76 
years of age when he went out to meet Alexander at Sapha. This is probably 
the true Chronology of the period between the last recorded date in the Old 
Testament history and the first reliable date in Greek history. 

We are now in a position to give our final table of the Chronology of the 
Old Testament, viz. the Chronology of the period of the Return. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 257 



The Return. 

AN. HOM. 

3589. The return under Zerubbabel, in the 1st year of Cyrus, which 
was the 54th year of the 70 years' indignation (see 
Chapter 24 and Vol II, Chronological Tables, p. 32). 
Add 16 years to complete the 70 years' indignation (see 
Zech. 1 7,1 21 6 and Vol. II, Chronological Tables, pp. 30, 
32, 34)- 

Within these years reigned the following Kings of Persia, 
but the length of their reigns is not given in the Old 
Testament : 

Cyrus, Ezra 1 1 . 

Ahasuerus (Cambyses), Ezra 4 6 . 
Artaxerxes (Pseudo-Smerdis) , Ezra 4 7 . 
Darius (Darius Hystaspes), Ezra 4 5 . 
16. (See Vol. II, Chronological Tables pp. 32, 34). 

3605. Last of the 70 years' indignation — 2nd year of Darius. 

Add 5 years to the return of Ezra in the 7th year of 
5. Artaxerxes (Darius Hystaspes), Ezra 7 s-9 . 
3610. Ezra returned to Jerusalem in the 7th year of Artaxerxes 
(Darius Hystaspes). 
Add 13 years to the appointment of Nehemiah as Pekah of 
Judah in the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Darius Hystaspes), 
13. Neh. 2 1 , 5 14 . 
3623. Nehemiah comes to Jerusalem. 

Add 12 years'administration of Nehemiah from the 20th to the 
12. 32nd year of Artaxerxes (Darius Hystaspes), Neh. 5 14 13 6 . 
3635. Nehemiah returns to Babylon in the 32nd year of 
Artaxerxes (Darius Hystaspes). 
Add 2 years for Nehemiah's visit to Babylon, and his 
return to Jerusalem, after spending " certain days " 
2. there, viz. 1 year, Neh. 13 6 . 
3637. Nehemiah's reforms. Close of the Old Testament Record. 



Chapter XXVI. Comparative Chronology. 

The Captivity and the Return. 

The principal extra- Biblical sources for the Chronology of this period are, 
for the captivity, the Babylonian cuneiform Inscriptions, especially the 
Egibi Tablets, and for the return, the Persian cuneiform Inscriptions, 
especially the great Behistun Inscription of Darius Hystaspes. Also the 
history of Josephus in his Antiquities, Book x, Chaps. 9-1 1, for the captivity, 
and Book xi, for the return. 

Herodotus (b.c. 484-424) , Ctesias (fl. B.C. 401-384), andXenophon (b.c. 430- 
357) are our chief classical authorities for this period. Nicolaus of Damascus 
(1st Century B.C.), Diodorus Siculus (1st Century a.d.) and Arrian (2nd Century 

R 



258 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



a.d.) are only late compilers. Ptolemy's. Canon, to which modern scholarship 
attributes a species of quasi-infallibility, is also a compilation of the 2nd 
Century a.d. 

The Egibi Tablets. 

Table-case G in the Babylonian and Assyrian Room of the British 
Museum, contains a most important and valuable series of clay tablets, 
dating from the ist year of Nebuchadnezzar to the 36th year of Darius. These 
are largely legal and commercial documents, many of them recording business 
transactions carried out by the members of the great mercantile house, founded 
by a wealthy merchant — a Babylonian Rothschild of the 7th Century B.C. — 
named Egibi or Sin-muballit. 

These tablets include deeds respecting the sale of land, slaves, and houses, 
marriage contracts and dowries, loans of money and grain, payment of debts, 
divisions of property, accounts and receipts. 

They are dated according to the year of the reign of the King of Babylon, 
and thus contribute to the fixing of the Chronology of the period. Transactions 
are recorded in every one of the 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar, from B.C. 604-562 ; 
the 2 years of Evil-merodach, B.C. 561-560 ; the 4 years of Neriglissar, B.C. 
559-556 ; the accession year of Labashi-Marduk, B.C. 556 ; and the 17 years 
of Nabonidus, B.C. 555-539. 

Transactions are recorded in each of the 9 years of Cyrus, B.C. 538-530, 
including the two years in which he was Co-Rex with Darius the Mede, B.C. 
538-537, and the 7 years in which he was sole King, B.C. 536-530. Cyrus 
being regarded as King of Babylon during the whole of these 9 years, Darius 
the Mede, whose residence was at Ecbatana, is not mentioned. 

Transactions are recorded in every one of the 8 years of Cambyses, B.C. 
529-522, in the year of Smerdis, who is sometimes called Barzia (b.c. 521). 

Transactions are recorded in about half the years of Darius Hystaspes, 
but tablets are wanting for 19 years of this reign. There is, however, a tablet 
dated as late as the 36th year of his reign, just two years beyond the close of 
the Old Testament Record and the period now under review. 

The only tablets dated later than this in the Persian period are, one in the 
2nd year of Xerxes, and one each in the 6th and the 13th years of Artaxerxes. 
Also one in the reign of Artaxerxes, but undated. 

Possibly these also refer to Darius Hystaspes, for Xerxes calls himself 
Darius in the Persepolis Inscription, and Artaxerxes is clearly another name 
for Darius in the Book of Ezra. 

This confirms the suspicion that, as there are no authentic records of this 
part of the Persian period, its duration may have been over-estimated by 
something like 82 years, by the late compilers Diodorus Siculus and Ptolemy. 

The Nabonidus Cylinder. 

There is a baked clay cylinder of Nabonidus (b.c. 555-539), No. 53, Table- 
case G, in the Babylonian and Assyrian Room of the British Museum. 

It contains a prayer to the moon god on behalf of his eldest son Bel-shar- 
usur (the Belshazzar of Dan. 5, 7 1 , and 8 1 ). It runs as follows : — 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



259 



" As for me, Nabonidus the King of Babylon, protect thou me from sinning 
against thine exalted godhead, and grant thou me graciously a long life ; and 
in the heart of Belshazzar my firstborn son, the offspring of my loins, set 
the fear of thine exalted godhead, so that he may commit no sin, and that 
he may be satisfied with the fulness of life." 

The mention of Belshazzar in these terms is held to indicate that he was 
associated with his father as Co-Rex of Babylon. 

This explains the curious offer of Belshazzar to Daniel, that if he could 
interpret the writing on the wall he should be " third ruler " in the Kingdom 
(Dan. 5 16 ' 29 )> there being already two supreme rulers, viz. Nabonidus and 
Belshazzar his son. 

The most important Persian cuneiform Inscriptions are those of Cyrus and 
Darius Hystaspes. 

The Cyras Tablet and the Cyrus Cylinder. 

Of the reign of Cyrus we have two important Inscriptions, the clay tablet 
of Cyrus and the clay cylinder of Cyrus. They were discovered and brought 
to England by Mr. Rassam. 

The clay tablet of Cyrus (CaseE, No. 122, in the Babylonian and Assyrian 
Room in the British Museum) contains the Annals of Nabonidus King of 
Babylon (b.c. 555~539)- It records the defeat of Astyages the Mede by 
Cyrus, the capture and spoiling of Ecbatana the capital of Media, the taking 
of Babylon, and the downfall and death of Nabonidus. 

From this we learn that Cyrus was King of Elam. He defeated Astyages 
and took Ecbatana in the 6th year of his reign, B.C. 550. In the 17th year, 
on the 14th day of the month Tammuz (June), Sippara was taken. Nabonidus 
fled. On the 16th Gobryas and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without 
fighting. Nabonidus was put into fetters. On the 3rd of Marcheswan 
(October) Cyrus entered Babylon. On the nth Gobryas was appointed over 
the other governors in Babylon, and Nabonidus died. 

All this is perfectly compatible with the narrative in the 5th chapter of 
Daniel, but we must always remember that silence is not denial. It would, 
however, be difficult to reconcile the account of Cyrus with that of Herodotus 
or that of Xenophon. 

The clay cylinder of Cyrus (Case G, No. 67, in the Babylonian and Assyrian 
Room of the British Museum) continues the history from the point at which 
the clay tablet of Cyrus leaves it. In this Inscription Cyrus glorifies himself 
and his son Cambyses. 

" Marduk proclaimed Cyrus King of Anshan or Elam, by name, for the 
Sovereignty of the whole world (cp. Isaiah 44 28 -45 13 ). Without 
fighting or battle he caused him to enter Babylon. Nabonidus 
the King he gave into his hand. I am Cyrus, the King of Legions, 
the great King, the powerful King, the King of Babylon, the King 
of Sumer and Accad, the King of the four zones ; the son of 
Cambyses the great King, the King of Elam ; the grandson of Cyrus, 
the great King, the King of Elam ; the great-grandson of Teispes, the 



26o THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



great King, the King of Elam. Merodach the great lord graciously 
drew nigh unto me, Cyrus the King, his worshipper, and to 
Cambyses my son, the offspring of my heart. I restored the 
gods to their places, all their people I assembled, and I restored 
their lands " (cp. Ezra i 1_ 3 ). 

Cyrus was originally King of Ansan, Anshan or Anzan. This was the native 
name of the country which the Assyrians, and the Hebrew Scriptures, called 
Elam. He became King of Persia between the 6th and the 9th years of 
Nabonidus, B.C. 549-546. The original capital of Cyrus was Susa or Shushan, 
which remained the principal city of the Persian Empire. 

Cambyses has left us no Inscriptions but there are dated tablets for every 
year of his reign, and one dated in the fourth year of Cyrus, in which Cambyses 
is called the Crown Prince. He may, therefore, have been associated in the 
throne with his father Cyrus as early as the 2nd year of Cyrus' sole Kingship, 
B.C. 535. 

The Great Behistun Inscription. 

Darius Hystaspes has left us six Inscriptions, of which by far the most 
important is the Great Behistun Inscription. The three texts of the Inscription 
in the (1) Persian, (2) contemporary Elamite, and (3) Babylonian languages 
are published, with English translations, an introduction and photographic 
illustrations, by the Trustees of the British Museum, under the title The 
Sculptures and Inscriptions of Darius the Great on the Rock of Behistun, in 
Persia (1907). 

Darius begins by giving his ancestry. This, when coupled with the infor- 
mation contained in the cylinder Inscription of Cyrus, yields the following 
table :— 

(1) Achaemenes 

I 

(2) Teispes 



(7) Ariaramenes. 

(8) Arsames. 
Hystaspes. 



(3) Cyrus I. 

I 

(4) Cambyses I. 

1 
I 

(5) Cyrus the Great. 

(6) Cambyses. 



(9) Darius Hystaspes. 
Darius says : — 

" Eight of my family have been Kings before me. I am the 9th. In 
two branches have we been Kings." 

Prof. E. G. Brown, in his Literary History of Persia, omits (3) Cyrus and 
includes Hystaspes, but Hystaspes is never called a King in any of the 
Inscriptions, and the addition of (3) Cyrus is necessitated by the cylinder 
Inscription of Cyrus. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 261 



The Behistun Inscription continues : — 

" By the grace of Ormazd I became King of Persia, Elam (Susiana) 
Babylonia, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt, The Maritime Countries, 
Sepharad, Ionia, Media, Armenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, etc. 

" A Magian, Gomatesby name, said ' I am Bardes, son of Cyrus, the brother 
of Cambyses/ and seized the crown. I killed this Gomates the 
Magian." 

There is a sculptured figure of Gomates lying prostrate on the ground, a 
large figure of Darius Hystaspes standing with his foot upon him, and 
9 other figures of men standing in a row with a rope round their necks. These 
are the 9 Kings who rose up against him in various parts of the Empire, and 
whom Darius crushed in 19 battles, during the first five years of his reign. 
They are as follows : — 



I. 


Gomates the Magian, 


who claimed to be Bardes, son of Cyrus. 


2. 


Assina who claimed to be King of Susiana. 


3. 


Nidinta-Bel 


Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon. 


4- 


Phraortes 


,, Cyaxares, King of Media. 


5- 


Martiya 


,, Immanes, King of Susiana. 


6. 


Chitratakhma ,, 


King of Sagartia. 


7- 


Vahyazdates 


Bardes, son of Cyrus. 


8. 


Arakha , , 


Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon. 


9- 


Frada ,, 


King of Margiana. 


10. 


Sakunka the Sakian. 





Sir Henry Rawlinson, at the risk of his life, copied and obtained squeezes 
of the Inscription, mounting a ladder within a few inches of the edge of a 
projecting rock, with a precipice some 500 feet deep just in front. Its 
decipherment was the romance of the 19th Century, and the key to the inter- 
pretation of the cuneiform Inscriptions of Assyria and Babylonia, which has 
enabled us to read so many Centuries of the past history of the race. 

Later Persian Inscriptions. 

There are other Inscriptions of Darius, — (1) on the walls of his magnificent 
palace at Persepolis, (2) round his tomb at Naksh-i-Rustam, and (3) on 
a granite slab on one of the rocky peaks of Mount Alwand, three miles to the 
south of Ecbatana, the modern Hamadan, but they throw no further light 
on the subject of Bible Chronology. 

The Inscriptions of the succeeding monarchs of Persia do not belong to 
this period, but it will be convenient to complete our account of the Cuneiform 
Inscriptions of Persia at this point. 

Xerxes has left five Inscriptions. The Inscription of Xerxes at Persepolis 
reads as follows : — 

" A great god is Ormazd, who created this earth, who created blessings 
for man, who has made Xerxes King, sole King of many Kings, sole 
lawgiver among many lawgivers." 



262 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



" I am Xerxes the great King, the King of Kings, the King of the lands 
where many languages are spoken ; the King of this wide earth, far 
and near, the son of King Darius the Achaemenian." 

" Says Xerxes the great King. By the grace of Ormazd, I have made this 
portal, which is sculptured with representations of all peoples. 
There are also many other beautiful buildings in Persia which I have 
made and which my father made. All such buildings as appear 
beautiful we have made by the grace of Ormazd." 

" Says Darius the King. May Ormazd protect me and my Empire, and 
my work and my father's work. May Ormazd protect it all." 

It will be noted that in the last paragraph Xerxes calls himself Darius. 
This proves that these Persian monarchs were sometimes called by different 
names. 

There is another Inscription by Xerxes at Mount Alwand and also one 
at Van. 

Of Artaxerxes Longimanus there is no Inscription except the words 
" Artaxerxes the great King " on a vase. This might equally well be an 
Inscription of Darius Hystaspes, who also bore the name Artaxerxes. 

Of Darius II Nothus, there is only a short Inscription on the posts of the 
windows of the palace of Darius Hystaspes at Persepolis. It reads : — 

" Summit of the palace of King Darius erected by a relative." 
This also might equally well be an Inscription of Darius Hystaspes. 

Of Artaxerxes II Mnemon, there is an Inscription at Susa (Shushan) which 
reads : — 

" I am Artaxerxes, the great King, the King of Kings, the son of King 
Darius." 

" Says Artaxerxes, the great King, the King of Kings, the King of the 
provinces, the King of this land, the son of King Darius." 

" Darius was the son of King Artaxerxes, Artaxerxes was the son of King- 
Xerxes, Xerxes was the son of King Darius, Darius was the son of 
Hystaspes, the Achaemenian." 

" This temple my ancestor Darius built. Afterwards my grandfather 
Artaxerxes (restored it). I placed in it (the images of) Anahita, 
Tanaitis and Mithras. By the grace of Ormazd I built the temple. 
May Ormazd, Anahita and Mithras protect me." 

Of Artaxerxes III Ochus, we have only this Inscription at Persepolis : — 

" A great god is Ormazd, who created this earth, who created yonder 
sky, who created man, and above other animals created man, w ho 
made me Artaxerxes King, one King of many, one Ruler of many." 

" Saith Artaxerxes the great King, the King of Kings, the King of 
the provinces, the King of this land. I am the son of King 
Artaxerxes. Artaxerxes was the son of King Darius, Darius was the 
son of King Artaxerxes, Artaxerxes was the son of King Xerxes, 
Xerxes was the son of King Darius, Darius was the son of 
Hystaspes, Hystaspes was the son of Arsames; Arsames w as the 
son of Achaemenes." 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 263 



" Saith Artaxerxes the King. This palace was built by me of stone. 
May Ormazd and Mithras protect me, and this region and that 
which I have built." 

Of Arses we have only these words on the seal of Grotefend : — 
" Arsaces a son of the race of Ahyabusanus." 

" The Inscriptions of Xerxes and Artaxerxes," says Prof. A. V. Williams 
Jackson, in his excellent work on Persia Past and Present (1906), " are 
hardly more than reproductions of the minor tablets of Darius, formularic 
in their content and mechanical in their structure. The ring of the metal 
seems less true in these later Inscriptions, the language, like the style, shows 
signs of decadence." 

In fact, what we have here is just what we should expect a dilettante tourist, 
with some knowledge of Persian, to carve on the ruins, if he had learned from 
Ptolemy and other late compilers the succession of the Persian monarchs and 
the relation between them. Standing alone, the Inscriptions of these later 
monarchs after Xerxes are not sufficient to authenticate the existence of the 
Kings whom they claim as their authors. 

In any case we have here not the slightest confirmation of the Chronology 
of the Persian period such as we have for the Assyrian and the Babylonian 
periods which precede it, and the Greek period which succeeds it. The 
Chronology is amply authenticated down to the end of the reign of Darius 
Hystaspes, but further than that the Monumental evidence of the cuneiform 
Inscriptions does not go. 

Josephus. 

Josephus' history of the period of the captivity is contained in his 
Antiquities, Book x, Chapters 10, 11. It is derived partly from Scripture 
and partly from Berosus' History of Chaldea. 

He agrees with the Babylonian clay tablets, with Ptolemy's Canon and 
with Scripture (Dan. 1 1 , Jer. 25 1_3 , 2 Kings 24 12 , 25 2 7 ), in ascribing 43 years 
to Nebuchadnezzar. He gives Evil-merodach 18 years, but Syncellus says 
Josephus followed Abydenus and Polyhistor in assigning 2 years to this reign. 
Neriglissar, whom he calls Neglissar, is credited with 40 years (possibly a 
copyist's error for 4 years). He gives 9 months to Labashi-Marduk, whom 
he calls Labosordacus ; and to Baltasar, called also Naboandelus, and in Contra 
Apion Nabonnedon, he ascribes 17 years, but he is mistaken in identifying 
Belshazzar, the son, with his father, Nabonidus. He says that the Queen 
mentioned in Dan. 5 10 was Belshazzar's grandmother. She has been identified 
with the famous Nitocris, the wife of Nebuchadnezzar. He says that Babylon 
was taken by Darius, the son of Astyages of Media, and his kinsman Cyrus, 
King of Persia. 

Josephus' history of the period of the return is contained in his Antiquities, 
Book xi, which brings his narrative down to the time of Alexander the Great. 
It will be convenient to consider his history down to that event in this chapter. 

Josephus says that in the 70th year from the day that the Jews were 



264 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



removed out of their own Land, Cyrus, in the first year of his reign, gave 
them leave to return to Jerusalem to rebuild their city and the Temple of 
God. This was done in consequence of his -reading the passage in the Book 
of Isaiah (44 28 -45 13 ) in which he is mentioned by name. 

Josephus follows Herodotus in making Cyrus die in the war against the 
Massagetae, not Xenophon, who says he died a peaceful death in his own bed. 
Josephus identifies the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4 7 ~ 23 with Cambyses, after whom he 
says the Magi attained the government of Persia for one year. Zerubbabel 
came from Jerusalem and obtained from Darius, the next King, permission 
to rebuild the Temple, and " all that Cyrus intended to do before him, relating 
to the restoration of Jerusalem, Darius also ordained should be done 
accordingly." Amongst the number of the distinguished men who returned 
with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2 2 , Neh. 7 7 ), he mentions the name of the Mordecai of 
the Book of Esther. 

It is very difficult to give an account of Josephus' view of the history of 
the Persian period. It is just the kind of history that would remain, if that 
of the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther were " emended," " corrected " 
and interpolated by some later copyist or editor with a view to bringing it 
into accord with some other version of the history. The result is just such 
a mixture of Scriptural events attributed to wrong persons as would follow 
from incorrect identifications of the persons named in the narrative. This 
may be due to Josephus himself, or more probably to some later hand. 

Josephus tells us that on the death of Darius, " Xerxes his son " took the 
Kingdom. Perhaps this sentence is a late interpolation, and the name Xerxes 
throughout the succeding narrative may be a " correction " by some late 
editor, supplanting the name Artaxerxes. For by Xerxes, Josephus always 
means the Artaxerxes of Ezra and Nehemiah. According to Josephus, it is this 
" Xerxes " who gives to Ezra the letter of Ezra 7 12 beginning, " Xerxes King 
of Kings, unto Ezra the priest." On the 12th day of the 1st month of the 7th 
year of this " Xerxes " they set out to go to Jerusalem (cp. Ezra 8 31 , y 9 ). 
Then follow the rest of the events contained in Ezra 9 and 10. 

Nehemiah is described as cupbearer to this " Xerxes." Nehemiah goes 
up' to Jerusalem in the 25th year of this " Xerxes " and builds the walls in 
spite of the opposition of the Samaritans. The walls are completed in the 
28th year of this " Xerxes," and the chapter concludes with the words " now 
this was done in the days of " Xerxes." 

But the " Xerxes " of Ptolemy's Canon, the son of Darius, reigned only 
20 years, and all the events ascribed to the reign of the " Xerxes " of Josephus, 
are attributed to the reign of " Artaxerxes " in Scripture. 

Hence, we are compelled to say that either (1) Josephus used the word 
" Xerxes " as another name for the Artaxerxes whom modern scholars 
identify with Longimanus, in which case the words which make him the " son 
of Darius " are a late interpolation, or a mistake of Josephus himself ; or else 
(2) Josephus is really referring under the name of " Xerxes " to Darius 
Hystaspes, and the opening sentence of the Antiquities, Book xi, Chap, v, 
which describes this " Xerxes " as a " son of Darius " is a late interpolation. 
In no case do the events which Josephus attributes to the reign of this 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 265 

" Xerxes " belong to Xerxes the " son of Darius/' the Xerxes of Ther- 
mopylae and Salamis. 

The confusion deepens as we pass into chapter 6. " After the death of 
Xerxes the Kingdom was transferred to his son Cyrus, whom the Greeks 
called Artaxerxes." The relationship here indicated points to Artaxerxes 
Longimanus (b.c. 464-424), but the sentence is probably either a late 
interpolation or an indication of Josephus' inability to understand the true 
meaning of the Ezra-Nehemiah-Esther narrative. For this " Artaxerxes " 
is immediately identified with the Ahasuerus of Esther, whom modern scholars 
identify with the " Xerxes " of Ptolemy's Canon. He reigns over 127 
provinces from India to Ethiopia. In his 3rd year he makes a costly feast 
at Shushan. He divorces Vashti, and marries Esther the niece of Mordecai. 
Haman plots against the Jews, is accused by Esther and hanged, and his office 
is given to Mordecai. The massacre takes place on the appointed 13th 
day of Adar, but the Jews defend themselves, and the feast of Purim is 
instituted. 

Here again we are compelled to say that either (1) Josephus used the word 
" Artaxerxes " as another name for Ahasuerus, whom modern scholars 
identify with the Xerxes of Ptolemy's Canon, in which case the words 
" Xerxes' son Cyrus, whom the Greeks called Artaxerxes," are a late interpola- 
tion, or a mistake of Josephus himself ; or else (2) Josephus is really referring, 
under the name of " Artaxerxes," to Darius Hystaspes, and the opening 
sentence of the Antiquities, Book xi, Chap, vi, which describes this " Cyrus 
whom the Greeks called Artaxerxes " as a " son of Xerxes," is a late inter- 
polation. In no case do the events which Josephus attributes to the reign 
of this " Artaxerxes the son of Xerxes " belong to Artaxerxes Longimanus. 

In chapter 7 we are introduced to Bagoses, the general of " another " 
Artaxerxes. This is said to indicate Artaxerxes II Mnemon (b.c. 404-359), 
the reign of Darius II Nothus (b.c. 424-404), being altogether omitted. But 
the word " another " is not in Josephus at all. The true reading is " Bagoses 
the general of the people of Artaxerxes " (tov Xaov ^ Apra^ip^ov). Vossius 
" emends " the text by what is really a pure conjecture to " Bagoses the 
general of another (or the other) Artaxerxes " (tov aXkov 'Apra^ep^ov) in 
order to manufacture another Persian King. He pleads Ruffinus's Latin 
Version of Josephus. But (1) the translation will not bear the construction 
put upon it, and (2) a long received reading of an ancient author ought not to 
be varied from, without the authority of some good manuscript to justify the 
emendation, and in this case there is none alleged. 

In this connection Dr. Prideaux has well observed : — 

" All that Vossius saith about it can amount to no more than a conjecture, 
which we can build nothing certain upon : and to alter old authors upon 
conjectures only is never to be allowed, especially where the context will 
bear the one reading as well as the other : for since the various fancies of men 
may lead to various conjectures, if there should be such a liberty allowed, 
whole books may be thus altered away and utterly defaced by such conjectural 
emendations ; and many good authors have already too much suffered 
by it." 



266 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



" To change the text of an author where there is no internal evidence of 
corruption," says Canon Rawlinson, " merely on account of a chronological 
or historical difficulty, is contrary to all the principles of sound criticism." 

The next King to this " Cyrus whom the Greeks call Artaxerxes " is 
" Darius the last King of Persia." He is mentioned in the following paragraph, 
and is described as a contemporary of Sanballat, the contemporary of Nehemiah 
on the one hand and Alexander the Great on the other. Josephus tells us 
that " about this time," Alexander the Great crossed the Hellespont, defeated 
the generals of Darius at Granicus (b.c. 334) and Issus (b.c. 333), took Tyre 
and Gaza (b.c. 332), and marched upon Jerusalem. 

Jaddua the high priest was in an agony, but warned of God in a dream 
he went out to meet Alexander the Great as he reached Sapha, from which 
place there is a good view of Jerusalem and the Temple. When Alexander 
the Great saw the multitude in white garments, the priests in fine linen, and 
the high priest in purple and scarlet, with his mitre on his head, having the 
golden plate whereon the name of God was engraved, he fell down and adored 
the Name and saluted the high priest. With the date of this visit of Alexander 
to Jerusalem, in B.C. 332, Josephus connects the death of Sanballat. 

The following reigns are all entirely omitted from Josephus : — 

Darius II Nothus . . . . . . . . . . 423-404 

Artaxerxes II Mnemon . . . . . . . . 404-358 

Artaxerxes III Ochus . . . . . . . . 358-327 

Arogus or Arses . . . . . . . . . . 337-335 

This fact is not explained by Vossius and Dr. Hudson when they say 
Josephus was writing the history of the Jews, and only touched upon those 
Kings of Persia who had to do with the Jews. 

As a matter of fact Josephus, or perhaps we should say his late revisers, 
represent Sanballat, the contemporary of Nehemiah in B.C. 445, as contemporary 
with Jaddua in B.C. 332, after an interval of 113 years, and transform the son 
of Joiada (Neh. 13 2 8 ) into his grandson. Modern advocates of the Ptolemaic 
dates endeavour to save the Chronology by inventing a second Sanballat. 

A closer inspection of Josephus will show that, as in the case of the 
cuneiform Inscriptions, his works contain no authentic materials for any 
history of Persia for more than one or two generations beyond the end of 
the Old Testament Record, in the 34th year of Darius Hystaspes, B.C. 488. 
Josephus confirms the Daniel Chronology, which abridges the duration of 
the Persian Empire by 82 years. 

His " Xerxes" is not the Xerxes of Ptolemy's Canon, but the Artaxerxes 
of Ezra 7 and Nehemiah, the Darius Hystaspes of Ptolerrvy's Canon. His 
" Artaxerxes " is not Artaxerxes Longimanus, and it is incorrect to say 
that, according to Josephus, Esther was married to Artaxerxes Longimanus. 
According to Josephus, the Artaxerxes who married Esther was simply 
Artaxerxes, and that was a name borne by several Persian monarchs, and 
certainly by Darius Hystaspes. 

True he does say that this Artaxerxes who married Esther was the son 
of " Xerxes," but by " Xerxes " he means quite positively the Artaxerxes of 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



267 



Ezra 7 and Nehemiah, who is identified by modern scholars with Artaxerxes 
Longimanus, but who is really Darius Hystaspes. 

According to Josephus, Darius Hystaspes is succeeded by " Xerxes." 
To him is attributed the whole of the events of Ezra 7-Nehemiah 13. This 
" Xerxes " is succeeded by " Artaxerxes." To his reign is attributed the 
whole of the events of the Book of Esther, and nothing but those events, 
and they occurred for the most part in one and the same year. Beyond 
this, Josephus gives us information of no other Persian Kings except the 
Darius who was slain by Alexander the Great. 

The Old Testament Apocrypha. 

The Books of the Old Testament Apocrypha preserve certain traditional 
identifications that were current in the 1st and 2nd Centuries B.C. 

In 1 Esdras 3 1 2 the Ahasuerus of Esther is identified with Darius 
Hystaspes. 

In Tobit it is Shalmaneser, " the father of Sennacherib," who carries 
Israel into captivity (not Sargon as the Monuments testify). Before he died 
Tobias heard of the destruction of Nineveh which was taken by Nabu- 
chodonosor (Nabopolassar) and Assuerus (Ahasuerus == Cyaxares). 

In the Rest of Esther, " Ahasuerus " is called " Artaxerxes " throughout. 

In Bel and the Dragon we read that King Astyages (viz. Darius the 
Mede) was gathered to his fathers, and Cyrus of Persia received the Kingdom. 

Greek Writers. 

Our chief classical authorities for the period of the captivity and the 
return are Herodotus, Ctesias and Xenophon. 

Herodotus (b.c. 484-425) is an excellent authority for the period of the 
great Persian war, B.C. 490-485. The accounts which he gives of earlier 
and remoter periods, accounts which he received on trust, are not always 
to be relied upon. He gives us an exquisite picture of the first four Persian 
monarchs. 

(1) " Cyrus, the simple, hardy, vigorous mountain chief, endowed with 
vast ambition, and with great military genius, changing as his Empire changed 
into the kind and friendly paternal monarch, clement, witty, polite, familiar 
with his people ; (2) Cambyses, the first form of the Eastern tyrant, inheriting" 
his father's vigour and much of his talent, but violent, rash, headstrong, 
incapable of self-restraint, furious at opposition, not only cruel, but brutal ; 
(3) Darius Hystaspes, the model Oriental prince, brave, sagacious, astute, 
great in the arts of both war and peace, the organizer and consolidator as well 
as the extender of the Empire ; and (4) Xerxes, the second and inferior form 
of tyrant, weak and puerile as well as cruel and selfish, fickle, timid, licentious 
and luxurious " (Introduction to Rawlinson's Herodotus). 

Herodotus' account of the earlier history of Assyria and Media, and his 
early history of Cyrus, cannot be regarded as authentic. His account of the 
taking of Babylon by Cyrus, (Herodotus i, 191) cannot be reconciled with 
the cylinder Inscription of Cyrus who says he took it " without fighting 



268 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



or battle." He appears to have inverted the order of the Kings of Media, 
Astyages and Cyaxares (Herodotus i, 73, 107, cp. Xenophon's Cyropczdia, Books 
i and viii). 

We have no authentic data for ascertaining the truth of the matter, but 
the Table given in Vol. II, Chronological Tables, p. 54, probably exhibits the re- 
lation of the families and the order of the succession of the Kings of Babylonia, 
Media and Persia, so far as they can be ascertained by unravelling the tangled 
skein of contradictory testimony gathered from all available sources, including 
Herodotus, Xenophon, Ctesias, Berosus, Josephus, Abydenus, Syncellus, 
the cylinder Inscription of Cyrus, and the Behistun Inscription of Darius 
Hystaspes. 

Instead of the succession of Herodotus (Deioces, Phraortes, Cyaxares, 
Astyages), we adopt that of Xenophon, who makes Cyaxares (1) the son of 
Astyages I, (2) the brother of Mandane (Cyrus' mother), and (3) the father of 
Astyages II (Darius the Mede). Xenophon's order of succession is Deioces, 
Phraortes, Astyages I, Cyaxares, Astyages II (Darius the Mede), and this 
agrees best with Berosus, Josephus and the Books of Daniel, Tobit and Bel 
and the Dragon. Scholars find it hard to abandon so good an authority as 
Herodotus, but he must be rejected here. 

Edouard Meyer unfortunately rejects the true statement of Herodotus 
that Cyrus was grandson of Astyages I, as legend (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 
nth Edition, article "Astyages"). 

The accounts of the birth of Cyrus are likewise irreconcilable and perhaps, 
to some extent, mythical. His entire history is involved and crowded with 
legends. Herodotus gives one tradition, but tells us that he knew of four 
others. According to one account, he is the son of Mandane the daughter 
of Astyages, exposed on the mountains, suckled by a dog, and educated as 
a shepherd (Justin, Charon of Lampsacus, .Elian and Herodotus). In 
Herodotus' own account a woman, the wife of the shepherd, is substituted 
for the dog (Herodotus i, 95, 122). 

The story as told by Ctesias makes Cyrus the son of a bandit. He enters 
the court of Astyages, becomes friendly with (Ebares, who kills Astyages. 
The decisive battle is fought at Pasargadae (Nicolaus of Damascus, Strabo, 
Justin, Photius). 

Xenophon's is an ideal account based upon personal knowledge of later 
descendants of the royal Persian family, but he preserves in his historical 
romance the true order of the succession of the Kings of Media (Xenophon 
Cyropczdia, Books i and viii). 

The accounts of the death of Cyrus are just as contradictory as those of 
his birth and his life. He died fighting the Massagetae (Herodotus), the 
Derbices (Ctesias), the Dahae (Berosus), a peaceful death in his own bed 
(Xenophon). 

We have, therfore, no original sources containing authentic data for the 
history of Cyrus in classic literature. 

Cambyses invaded and conquered Egypt in the year B.C. 525. Cambyses 
had a brother called Tanaoxares (Xenophon), Smerdis (Herodotus), Mergis 
(Justin), Bardis (the Behistun Inscription), whom he put to death. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 269 



In B.C. 522 he was personated by Gomates who was placed on the throne 
"by his brother Patizithes, whom Cambyses had left in control of the Govern- 
ment of Asia during his absence in Egypt. 

These brothers were Magians, and are hence often referred to as the Magi. 
Pseudo-Smerdis is also called Gomates (Behistun Inscription), Spendidates 
(Ctesias) and Orapastes (Justin), but in Ezra 4 7-2 3 he is referred to under the 
name of Artaxerxes. 

That Cambyses was the Ahasuerus of Ezra 4 6 , and Pseudo-Smerdis the 
Artaxerxes of Ezra 4', is inferred from the fact that they are mentioned in 
that chapter as the Kings of Persia who reigned between Cyrus and Darius 
Hystaspes. The inference is confirmed by the use of the word " Kings " 
in Ezra 4 13 - 22 instead of " King," in reference to Pseudo-Smerdis and his 
brother, who was the power behind the throne and the real contriver of the 
whole plot. " The royal power was possessed by the Magi Patizithes and 
his brother " (Herodotus hi, 65). 

Darius was a great conqueror. He conquered Asia Minor, Europe, India 
and the Isles o£ the Sea. In B.C. 494 he sent an expedition against Athens 
under his son-in-law Mardonius, but Mardonius was defeated and forced to 
return (Herodotus, Book vii). In B.C. 490 another expedition was fitted out 
by Datis and Artaphernes, and was utterly routed in the famous battle of 
Marathon. Darius now prepared to head an expedition in person. 

He had three sons by his first wife, born before he became King, and four 
others by Atossa the daughter of Cyrus. There was some dispute about the 
succession which was settled by Darius, who appointed his son Xerxes to succeed 
him (Herodotus, Book vi). These circumstances throw some light upon the 
reference to "the realm of the King and his sons" in Ezra 7 23 , and 
corroborate the identification of the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7 and Nehemiah, with 
Darius Hystaspes. Darius died suddenly, just as the expedition was ready 
to set out, B.C. 485. 

Xerxes resolved to prosecute the war with Greece. He crossed the 
Hellespont with an army of nearly two million men, supported by 1,200 ships 
of the line of battle, and was utterly discomfited at Thermopylae, Salamis 
and Platea, B.C. 480. 

The remainder of the history of the Persian Empire is unknown, there 
being no authentic contemporary records until we reach the time of Alexander 
the Great. 

Darius Hystaspes = Artaxerxes of Ezra 7 and Nehemiah. 

We have now to prove that the identification of Darius Hystaspes with 
the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7 and Nehemiah is correct. Seven proofs are offered : — 

1. The Continuity of the Narrative. 

The Book of Ezra-Nehemiah is one Book, and the narrative is continuous 
throughout, except that in Ezra 3 1 0-1 3 we have an anticipatory reference 
to the laying of the foundation of the Temple, introduced by the word when, 
indicating that the foundation of the Temple was not laid then (in the 2nd 
year of Cyrus), but as Haggai says, in the 2nd year of Darius (Hag. 2 1015 
1S - 20 ). Compare the following passages : — 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



The Continuity of the Ezra-Nehemiah Narrative. 

Ezra 4 2 4 2nd year of Darius — Temple begun. 

6 15 . 6th „ Temple finished. 

7 8 - 9 . 7th „ Artaxerxes — Ezra comes to Jerusalem. 

Neh. 1 1 . 20th „ (Artaxerxes) — Hanani's Report. 

2 1 . 20th ,, Artaxerxes — Nehemiah goes to Jerusalem. 

Neh. 5 14 , 13 6 . 32nd „ ,, Nehemiah returns to Babylon. 

The transition is made in Ezra 6 1 4 in which we are told that Artaxerxes 
was another name for Darius, " Darius even Artaxerxes." 

2. The age of Ezra. 

If the Artaxerxes of Ezra was Artaxerxes Longimanus (b-.c. 464-424), 
then Ezra would be 128 years old when he came from Babylon in his 7th year 
(to be present at the dedication of the Temple) . 

For, as pointed out by Lumen in the Prince of Judah, Ezra was the brother 
of Jehozadak. 



alogy of Jehozadak. 


Genealogy of Ezra. 


1 


Chron. 6 3-15 . 


Ezra 7 1- 5 . 


1. 


Aaron 


Aaron. 


2. 


Eleazar 


Eleazar. 


3- 


Phinehas 


Phinehas. 


4- 


Abishua 


... Abishua. 


5- 


Bukki 


Bukki. 


6. 


Uzzi 


Uzzi. 


7- 
8. 


Zerahiah 


Zerahiah. 


Meraioth 


Meraioth. 


9- 


Amariah I. 




10. 


Ahitub I. 




11. 


Zadok I. 




12. 


Ahimaaz 




13. 


Azariah I. 




14. 


Johanan 




15. 


Azariah II. 


Azariah. 


16. 


Amariah II. 


Amariah. 


17- 


Ahitub II. 


Ahitub. 


18. 


Zadok II. 


Zadok. 


19. 


Shallum 


Shallum. 


20. 


Hilkiah 


Hilkiah. 


21. 


Azariah III. 


Azariah. 


22. 


Seraiah 


Seraiah. 




JEHOZADAK . . 


EZRA. 



In Ezra 7 the genealogy is abridged, but it is sufficient for the purpose 
for which it is thus quoted. In 1 Chronicles it is given in full. Seraiah, the 
father of Jehozadak and Ezra, was slain by Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah in 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



271 



his 19th year, B.C. 586 (2 Kings 25 s - 18 ~ 21 ). Therefore Ezra must have been 
born about or before B.C. 586. But the 7th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus 
was B.C. 458. Therefore, if the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7 was Artaxerxes Longi- 
manus, Ezra must have been at least 128 years old when he came to Jerusalem 
in the 7th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, and at least 141 when he walked 
in procession at the dedication of the wall with Nehemiah, in the 20th 
year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, which is absurd. 

But the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7 is really Darius Hystaspes, whose 7th year 
was B.C. 515, in which year Ezra was (at least) 71 years old, and possibly more. 

3. Twenty out of the thirty priests and Levites who returned with Zerub- 
babel in the 1st year of Cyrus, B.C. 536 (Neh. 12 1_9 ), signed the covenant 
with Nehemiah (Neh 10 2 ~ 10 ) in the 20th year of the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah. 
But the 20th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus was B.C. 445. Therefore, if 
the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah was Artaxerxes Longimanus, then twenty out 
of these thirty men were still alive 91 years after they came to Jerusalem, 
although they were all heads of their families then, which is absurd. But 
the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah was really Darius Hystaspes, and the interval 
between the return with Zerubbabel, B.C. 536, and the 20th year of Darius 
Hystaspes, B.C. 502, is only 34 years, during which time 10 of these 30 heads 
of families had died. See Vol. II, Chronological Tables, p. 53. 

4. The Age of Nehemiah. 

Nehemiah returned with Zerubbabel (b.c. 536) , Ezra 2 2 , Neh. 7 7 . His name 
stands first on the list after Zerubbabel and Joshua. But the 32nd year of 
Artaxerxes Longimanus was B.C. 433. Therefore, if the Artaxerxes of 
Nehemiah was Artaxerxes Longimanus, Nehemiah must have been 103 years 
older when he returned to Babylon in the 32nd year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, 
than he was when he came to Jerusalem in the 1st year of Cyrus as one of the 
leaders of the people. But the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah is really Darius 
Hystaspes, and in the 32nd year of his reign (b.c. 490), Nehemiah was only 
46 years older than he was when he came to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel in 
the 1st year of Cyrus. 

5. The Artaxerxes of Nehemiah reigned 32 years. 

Since the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7 and Nehemiah was not Artaxerxes 
Longimanus, and a fortiori not any Persian King who reigned after 
Artaxerxes Longimanus, he must have been Darius Hystaspes, for he reigned 
at least 32 years (Neh. 5 14 , 13 6 ) which is what no other Persian King before 
Artaxerxes Longimanus except Darius Hystaspes did. 

6. The Testimony of Josephus, the Old Testament Apocrypha, and the 
Jewish Tract, Sedar Olam. 

Josephus identifies the Artaxerxexs of Ezra 7 with a Persian King (whom 
he calls Xerxes) who reigned at least 28 years. This cannot be the Xerxes 
of Ptolemy's Canon, for he only reigned 21 years. It must be Darius Hystaspes, 
and Josephus (or his late editors) must be in error in describing him as the 
" Son of Darius "(Hystaspes). 



272 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



In i Esdras the Ahasuerus of Esther is identified with Darius Hystaspes, 
and in the Rest of Esther Ahasuerus is called " Artaxerxes " throughout. 
Jewish Tradition, as represented in the Jewish Tract Sedar Olam, also identifies 
the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah with Darius Hystaspes. 

7. Corroborative Evidences. 

The mention of the " King's sons " in Ezra 7 corroborates the identification 
of the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7 with Darius Hystaspes, for he had several sons 
before he became King, who disputed the succession with his sons by his 
second wife Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus, one of whom Darius Hystaspes 
appointed to succeed him, viz. Xerxes. 

The parenthetic sentence in Neh. 2 6 , " the queen also sitting by him," 
is probably a reference to Esther, with whom Nehemiah may have had 
communications respecting the state of affairs at Jerusalem, and who may 
have encouraged him and influenced the King in his favour. But this King 
reigned at least 32 years (Neh. 13 6 ), and could not have been Xerxes, who 
only reigned 21 years, nor any other but Darius Hystaspes, who is frequently 
called both Artaxerxes and Ahasuerus in the Apocryphal literature and 
Josephus. 

In Ezra 10 44 we read " All these had taken strange wives, and some of 
them had wives by whom they had children." This corroborates the 
identification of the Artaxerxes to whose 7th year the remark applies, with 
some King of Persia, who lived nearer to the time of the return under 
Zerubbabel than Artaxerxes Longimanus. 

The genealogical lists given in Ezra and Nehemiah corroborate the identi- 
fication of the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7, and Nehemiah with Darius Hystaspes. 
The contrary view necessitates the hypothesis of two Ezras, two- Nehemiahs, 
two Mordecais, two Sanballats, and so on. 

On all these grounds we regard the identification of the Artaxerxes of 
Ezra 7 and Nehemiah with Darius Hystaspes as correct. 

Darius Hystaspes = Ahasuerus of Esther. 

Finally, we have to prove that the Ahasuerus of Esther was also Darius 
Hystaspes. 

The Book of Esther is an appendix containing the record of an episode 
which took place in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. The narrative itself 
occupies the space of one year, the 12th year of Ahasuerus, but there are also 
brief introductory references to his 3rd, 6th and 7th years. It is not a con- 
tinuation of the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah, but an illustration of the times in 
which Ezra and Nehemiah lived. 

We identify the Ahasuerus of Esther with Darius Hystaspes, and we 
offer the following five proofs : — 

1. The Age of Mordecai. 

Scaliger first suggested the identification of the Ahasuerus of Esther with 
the Xerxes of Ptolemy's Canon, and in this he has been followed by modern 
scholars almost universally. But Mordecai " was carried away from 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 273 



Jerusalem with the captivity which had been carried away with Jeconiah 
King of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon carried away." 
B.C. 597 (Est. 2 5- 6 ). It is only by a forced construction that this sentence 
can be applied to his great grandfather Kish. Mordecai was Ahasuerus' 
premier in the 12th year of his reign. Therefore, if Ahasuerus was Xerxes, 
in his 12th year, B.C. 474, Mordecai would be at least 123 years old, at which 
rate Esther also must have been " an aged beauty ! " 

2. Testimony of Josephus and the Old Testament Apocrypha. 

Josephus tells the story of Esther at great length, but instead of speaking 
of Ahasuerus, it is " Artaxerxes " throughout. Now Artaxerxes was one of 
the names of Darius Hystaspes, as well as of several other Persian monarchs. 
True, Josephus speaks of this Artaxerxes as " Cyrus the son of Xerxes, whom 
the Greeks called Artaxerxes," but if the reference be to Artaxerxes 
Longimanus, that would raise the age of Mordecai to 143. 

In 1 Esdras 3 lm 2 the Ahasuerus of Esther is identified with Darius 
Hystaspes, and in the Rest of Esther he is called "Artaxerxes " throughout. 

3. Ahasuerus " reigned from India to Ethiopia, over 127 Provinces " 
(Est. i 1 ). 

Darius Hystaspes conquered India in B.C. 506. Herodotus says he 
" established 20 governments of the kind which the Persians call Satrapies, 
assigning to each its governor, and fixing the tribute which was to be paid 
him by the several nations " (hi, 89). These he proceeds to enumerate, 
a long list embracing nearly all the nations of the East — Asia Minor, Phoenicia 
Syria, Cyprus, Egypt, Libya, Cyrene, Susa, Babylon, Assyria, Media, Armenia, 
Parthia — these are all enumerated, with the amount of the tribute paid by 
each nation (iii, 90-94). " The Indians, who were more numerous than any 
other nation with which we are acquainted, paid a tribute exceeding that of 
any other people, to wit 360 talents of gold dust. This was the twentieth 
Satrapy " (iii, 95). 

" The Ethiopians paid no settled tribute, but brought gifts to the King. 
Every third year the inhabitants of Egypt and Nubia brought 2 quarts of 
virgin gold, 200 logs of ebony, 5 Ethiopian boys, and 20 elephants' tusks " 
(iii, 97). 

Darius the Mede set 120 Princes over his Kingdom (b.c. 538), Dan. 6 1 . 
By the time of Darius Hystaspes (b.c. 521-485), the Empire had grown to 127 
provinces, which he divided up into 20 Satrapies as stated above. 

4. Ahasuerus " laid a tribute upon the land and upon the Isles of the Sea." 
(Est. io 1 ). 

After enumerating the 20 satrapies of the Empire and the amount of tribute 
paid by each satrapy, Herodotus concludes : " such was the revenue which 
Darius derived from Asia, and a small part of Libya. Later in his reign the 
sum was increased by the tribute of the Islands and of the nations of Europe 
as far as Thessaly " (Herodotus, Book iii, 96). 

Thucydides says, " The Ionians had attained great prosperity when Cyrus 
s 



274 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



and the Persians, having overthrown Croesus, and subdued the countries 
between them and the river Halys and the sea, made war against them and 
enslaved the cities of the mainland. Some time afterwards, Darius, strong 
in the possession of the Phoenician fleet, conquered the Islands also." 

Herodotus (iii, 96), Thucydides (Book i), and Plato (Menexenus), all tell 
us that Darius Hystaspes subdued all the Islands of the yEgean sea, and 
Diodorus Siculus (Book xii) tells us that they were all lost again, by his son 
Xerxes, before the 12th year of his reign, (b.c. 474), which we can w T ell believe 
after the humiliating defeat of his vast host of warriors by land and sea at 
Thermopylae, Salamis and Platea, B.C. 480. The later Kings of Persia held 
none of these Islands except Clazomene and Cyprus (Xenophon, Hellenica, 
Book v). This is conclusive, both for the identification of the Ahasuerus of 
Esther with Darius Hystaspes, and against his identification with Xerxes, or 
with any later occupant of the Persian throne. 

5. The dates and the events recorded in Esther, fit in exactly with the 
dates and the events of the reign of Darius Hystaspes. 

Ahasuerus made his feast in the third year of his reign (b.c. 519). Darius 
Hystaspes was occupied during the first two years of his reign in overthrowing 
Gomates and the other pretenders to the throne of Persia. Babylon revolted 
twice from Darius, once in the first year of his reign and again in the fourth. 
On this second occasion the siege was a tedious affair, lasting nearly 2 years 
(Herodotus iii, 151). This brings us down to the 6th year of Darius, and 
explains how it was that although Vashti was divorced in his third year, he 
was not married to Esther until his 7th year (Est. 1 3 , 2 16 ). 

The chief argument relied upon by those who identify the Ahasuerus of 
Esther with Xerxes, is the congruity of the character of Ahasuerus with that 
of Xerxes as depicted by Herodotus, and other classic writers. But there 
is nothing in the character of Ahasuerus which does not agree equally well 
with all that we know from classic literature of Darius Hystaspes ; in fact 
the reference to the money matters, to the postal service, and above all the 
friendly disposition of Ahasuerus toward the Jews, agrees exactly with what 
we know of Darius the " huckster," the organizer of the Empire, and the 
" Darius even Artaxerxes V who issued the decrees of Ezra 6 6-1 2 and Ezra 
7 12-2 6 for the rebuilding of the Temple, and the support of its services. The 
argument for the identification of Ahasuerus with Xerxes from the 
similarity between the old Persian name Khshayarsha, the Hebrew 
Achashverosh, and the Greek Xerxes, is of no force, for the word in any form, 
and however spelt, is simply the word " Shah," and might be applied to an}' 
monarch who sat upon the throne of Persia. 



CONCLUSION. 



Chapter XXVII. The year of Messiah's Birth according to the 
Prophecy of Daniel (an. hom. 4038). 

"The Epicureans are in error who cast providence out of human life, and do 
not believe that God takes care of the affairs of the world, nor that the universe 
is governed and continued in being by that blessed and immortal nature, but 
that the world is carried along of its own accord, without a ruler and a curator ; 
which, were it destitute of a guide to conduct, as they imagine, it would be 
like ships without pilots, which we see drowned by the winds, or like chariots 
without drivers, which are overturned ; so would the world be dashed to 
pieces by its being carried without a providence, and so perish and come to 
nought. Those men seem to me very much to err from the truth who determine 
that God exercises no providence over human affairs, for if it were the case 
that the world went on by mechanical necessity, we should not see all things 
come to pass according to the prophecy of Daniel." (Josephus, Antiquities, 
Book x, Chap, ii, 7). 

We have now traced the dated events of the Old Testament step by step 
from the creation of Adam to the 1st year of Cyrus, and beyond it, to the 
end of the story of the return. Every step has been attested and proved. 
Every chasm has been bridged over. Every difficulty has been explained. 
Every problem has been solved. 

The final test of truth is self-consistency. We have seen that every 
chronological statement in the Old Testament is consistent with every other 
chronological statement contained in it, consistent also with every chrono- 
logical statement contained in the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Assyria, 
Babylonia and Persia. 

This should give us confidence in using the Scripture Chronology, as a 
standard with which to compare and by which to judge, the accuracy of 
statements and inferences obtained from other sources. It should also give 
us a measure of confidence in the great chronological predictions of Scripture. 

For the realm in which we live is a realm of order, and order is a proof 
of intelligence and foresight and purpose. 

The purpose of God in creation and redemption is made known to us 
in a revelation, in the light of which we are able to interpret the history of 
the past, to read the meaning of the present, and to anticipate the will and 
purpose of God with regard to the future. 

If we believe in the universal sovereignty of God, in any real sense at all, 
we must admit that He retains in His own hands, and controls by His own 
power, the destiny of men and nations. If this be true of events in general, 
it must be true of the supreme event of all history, the advent of the Messiah, 
and the redemption of the race wrought out by Him. 

275 



276 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



Our scheme of Chronology, so far as we have yet gone, is incomplete. 
It ends in a cul de sac. It leads us nowhere. There remains one great final 
gulf or chasm which must be bridged over if we are to complete the cycle 
and read the meaning of the parts in the light of the whole. 

This is done for us in the great 9th chapter of Daniel, which enables 
us to recover the lost count of the years and to connect the present with all 
the facts and the events of the past, and with the great central event of all 
history, the redemption of the race through the incarnation of the Messiah. 

The revelation of the precise time of the Messiah's death is made in the 
last four verses of Daniel 9. It is made in the words of the angel Gabriel, 
the only angel of his rank whose name is known to us, the angel who made 
to Mary, " highly favoured," the announcement of the approach of Messiah's 
birth, as he made to Daniel, " greatly beloved," the announcement of the 
time of His death. 

The expression " for thou art greatly beloved," n?* nnoq is the exact 
equivalent of " thou art highly favoured," Keyapirw/jLevri. It is used three 
times to Daniel, and never to anyone else except Mary, and Gabriel is the 
only angel employed to make known to men the revelation of the mystery 
of redemption through the incarnation of the Son of God. 

Considering the singular nature of the revelation vouchsafed, we ought 
not to be surprised when we find that it contains not only the announcement 
of a great event, but also of the very time when it was ordained of God to 
come to pass. 

The occasion of the prophecy was someting very extraordinary. It is 
dated in the 1st year of Darius the Mede, the year of the passing of the great 
Babylonian World Empire in B.C. 538, the inaugural year of the second great 
World Empire of the Medes and Persians. 

Daniel had been studying the 25th and the 29th chapters of the Book of 
Jeremiah, and there he had read the words, " after 70 years I will cause you 
to return." From the 3rd year of Jehoiakim — the year in which Daniel was 
carried away into captivity, B.C. 605, to the 1st year of Darius, B.C. 538, was 
a period of 68 years, inclusive reckoning. He knew, therefore, that he was 
standing on the threshold of the fulfilment of the prophecy. So he set his 
face unto the Lord God to seek by prayer and supplication to know His will. 
He prayed for Jerusalem, the city, the people, the holy mountain and the 
sanctuary that was desolate,. And while he was speaking the answer came. 

Seventy sevens — not weeks, for that suggests a period of 7 days, and the 
word used means simply a septad, a seven ; the nature of the seven has to 
be discovered from the context. Here it is the seventy years of Jeremiah's 
prophecy, during which the Jews were to be in captivity, and the seventy 
sevens are therefore to be interpreted as years also. Seventy sevens are 
determined upon the holy city. God's dealings with the Jews and their city 
was to cover a period of 490 years. 

" Know, therefore, and understand that from the going forth of the 
commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince 
shall be seven sevens (49 years) and 62 sevens (434 years). The street shall 
be built again and the wall even in troublous times. And after the 62 sevens 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



shall Messiah be cut off." Other events follow, and there is another seven 
years yet future to complete the whole period of God's dealings with His people 
in their own land, but the data we require for our Chronology are contained 
in the above words. From " the going forth of the commandment to restore 
and to build Jerusalem " to " the cutting off of the Messiah is a period of 
49 + 434 = 483 years. 

The only point to be determined is the exact time at which the command- 
ment went forth. 

That commandment is unquestionably the proclamation of Cyrus in the 
1st year of his sole reign, B.C. 536. This is proved conclusively from 
2 Chron. 36 20 " 23 . What Daniel had in his mind was the accomplishment 
of the 70 years' servitude in Babylon, and its termination by the issue of an 
edict by the King of Persia giving the Jews liberty to return. 

" They were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the Kingdom 
of Persia," that is until the 1st of Cyrus, B.C. 536. " To fulfil the word of 
the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths : 
for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years." 

" Now in the 1st year of Cyrus, King of Persia, that the word of the Lord 
spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the 
spirit of Cyrus, King of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all 
his Kingdom, and put it in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus, King of Persia, 
The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the Kingdoms of the earth ; and 
He hath charged me to build him a House at Jerusalem, which is in Judah." 

The building of the Temple implies the building of the city and the wall. 
Cyrus obtained his knowledge of the " charge " to build a House from 
Is. 44 28 ~45 13 , which makes explicit what is implicit in the words of Cyrus. 
" Cyrus . . . shall perform all my pleasure : even saying to Jerusalem, Thou 
shalt be built ; and to the Temple, Thy foundation shall be laid ... I have 
raised him (Cyrus) up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways : he 
shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives." 

The prophecy was not falsified. The people did return, the city was 
built, their enemies accused them, no doubt with perfect truth, of building 
what they called " the rebellious and the bad city," and of setting up the 
walls and joining the foundations thereof (Ezra 4 12 ). The people dwelt in 
" ceiled houses " (Hag. 1 4 ). Tatnai visited Jerusalem and asked them " Who 
hath commanded you to build this House and to make up this wall ? " 
(Ezra 5 3 ). Ezra returned to Jerusalem before Nehemiah received permission 
to return to Jerusalem to build the city, and he thanked God because the 
house of God was set up, the desolations were repaired, and a wall was given 
in Jerusalem as early as the 7th year of Darius Hystaspes, otherwise 
Artaxerxes (Ezra o, 9 ). 

This is the simple, the obvious, and indeed the only possible interpretation 
of the prophecy. The words were spoken in the 1st year of Darius, B.C. 538, 
of a city then lying in ruins. The " street " was the broad, empty space where 
the houses were formerly built, the area enclosed by the circumventing wall. 
The wall was the enclosing and protecting defence of the city. Both 
were to be built again, even in troublous times. 



278 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



" The commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem " was a command- 
ment to build the houses and the wall, to re-people the city and to rebuild 
the Sanctuary. 

The one great event, and the only one in the history of the Jews which 
corresponds with the prophecy, is the return of the 42,360 exiles under 
Zerubbabel and Joshua, the rebuilding of the city and the Sanctuary, and the 
securing of the safety of the same by the erection of the protecting wall. 

None of the Chronologers have been able to adopt this interpretation, 
because, although they have seen its truth, they have been unable to shake 
off the tyranny of the Ptolemaic system of Chronology. 

Thus, Prideaux says, " Jerusalem was rebuilt by virtue of the decree granted 
by Cyrus in the first year of his reign, and if the words of the prophecy " to 
restore and to build Jerusalem " are to be understood in a literal sense, they 
can be understood of no other restoring and building of that city than that 
which was accomplished by virtue of that decree, and the computation of 
the 70 weeks must begin from the granting and going forth thereof." (Why 
not ?) 

" But if the computation be begun so high, the 490 years of the said 70 weeks 
cannot come low enough to reach any of those events which are predicted 
by this prophecy." 

He therefore rejects this interpretation of the prophecy, " because if the 
490 years begin from the decree of Cyrus they cannot, by a great many years, 
reach the events predicted by this prophecy, and therefore none who under- 
stand this prophecy to relate either to the cutting off or the coming of the 
Messiah do begin from hence, for according to this Computation no Chronology 
can ever reconcile these years to either the coming or the cutting off of the 
Messiah." 

Benjamin Marshall follows in the same strain and makes the following 
calculation : — 

7X7= 49 years. 
62 X 7 — 434 » 

Total 483 „ 

But Cyrus' commandment was issued B.C. 536, and these 483 years bring 
us only to B.C. 53. Marshall places the death of Christ a.d. 33, and this makes 
the interval 86 years too long. If he had placed the death of Christ at a.d. 29 
instead of a.d. 33, the interval would have been 82 years, which is just the 
exact number by which the Ptolemaic Chronology errs from the truth. 

What Marshall and Prideaux say in effect is just this. Since the Messiah 
was not cut off till 82 years after the date expressed in the prophecy, reckoning 
from the going forth of the commandment of Cyrus according to the infallible 
Chronology of Ptolemy's Canon, therefore, the going forth of the command- 
ment of Cyrus was not the event which the prophecy contemplated, and we 
must seek some other point to reckon from. 

The truth is, it is not the starting point of the reckoning, but the Ptolemaic 
Chronology which is in error, and that by the space of just 82 years. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



279 



Other Chronologers take the same view with regard to the abandonment 
of the Decree of Cyrus, B.C. 536, as the starting point of the reckoning, but 
they disagree upon the choice of an alternative starting point. 

Altogether four decrees are mentioned in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, 
each of which has found its advocates, except the Decree of Cyrus, which is 
the one to which the prophecy does really refer. These are : — 

The four Decrees, one of which must be identified with "the commandment 
to restore and to build Jerusalem " (Dan. 9 25 ). 

1. The decree of Cyrus to build the Temple. 

1st Cyrus to the Crucifixion = 536 + 32 — 568 years. 

2. The decree of Darius to complete the Temple. 

2nd Darius to the Crucifixion = 520 + 32 = 552 years. 

3. The decree of Artaxerxes to endow the Temple. 

7th Artaxerxes to the Crucifixion = 458 + 32 = 490 years. 

4. The decree of Artaxerxes to build the city and the wall. 

20th Artaxerxes to the Crucifixion = 445 + 33 = 478 years = 483 
Chaldean years of 360 days each. 

The decree of Darius is that given in the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th years of Darius, 
Ezra 4 24 , 6 1-12 . It is rejected on the same ground as that of Cyrus — incom- 
patibility with the received Ptolemaic Chronology. 

Dr. Prideaux says — " The seventy weeks of this prophecy could not have 
their beginning from this decree, for the same reason that they could not begin 
from the decree of Cyrus, that is, because the 490 years, reckoning from 
the granting of this decree, cannot reach the chief events which are by this 
prophecy predicted to fall within the compass of them, that is, the coming 
and the cutting off of the Messiah." 

Marshall calculates — Darius' decree was issued in his 2nd year, B.C. 520, 
and these 483 years bring us only to B.C. 37. 

The decree of the 7th year of Artaxerxes is advocated by Dr. Prideaux. 
His starting point is the 7th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus = B.C. 458. His 
terminus is the death of Christ, which he puts at a.d. 33. He divides the 
490 years as follows : — 

Marshall's Interpretation of Daniel 9 24 " 27 . 

7 X 7 = 49 years to the reconstitution of the Jewish church and state 
in Jerusalem. 

62 X 7 = 434 years to the first appearance of the Messiah in his fore- 
runner, John the Baptist. 
1X7= 7 years, viz. 3J- years' ministry of John the Baptist and 

3J years' ministry of Jesus Christ. 
Total seventy sevens, or 490 years. 

According to Marshall, Artaxerxes' decree was issued in his 7th year — B.C. 
458, and from this point, 483 years brings us to a.d. 21. 



280 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



In all three cases the starting point is too early. It does not reach down 
to the date of the death of Christ, though Prideaux stretches the time by 
taking the word " after " to mean not immediately after, but some little 
time after the 62 sevens, "shall Messiah be cut off." 

The decree of the 20th year of Artaxerxes is advocated by Petavius, 
Ussher, Lloyd, Marshall, and most present day students of Daniel's prophecy. 

As the first three decrees all fall short of the assumed date of our Lord's 
death, a.d. 33, so this one falls beyond it. Accordingly, various expedients 
are adopted for computing the years in such a way as to make them fit the 
prophecy. 

Petavius begins with the 20th of Artaxerxes, B.C. 454 (instead of B.C. 445), 
and so gets rid of 9 years by assuming that Artaxerxes began to reign as Co- 
Rex with his father Xerxes at that date. His excuse for this is the fact of the 
flight of Themistocles to the court of Artaxerxes Longimanus, which is 
dated by Thucydides and Charon of Lampsacus B.C. 471. 

Ussher takes the same view, only he makes Xerxes die after a reign of 
12 years instead of 21, and gives Artaxerxes Longimanus 50 years instead of 
41. To get back 4 of these 9 years, both Ussher and Petavius assume that 
Christ's death, a.d. 33, took place in the middle of the last week of 7 years — 
hence they reckon 69^ X 7 = 486J, or say 487 years from B.C. 454 to a.d. 33. 

Lloyd adopts another expedient for getting rid of the superfluous 5 years 
over and above the 478 contained in the period from the 20th of Artaxerxes, 
B.C. 445, to the death of Christ, a.d. 33. He reckons that the 483 years of 
Daniel are Chaldean years of 360 days each, and as 69 ordinary Julian years 
of 365 \ days are equal to 70 Chaldean years of 360 days, Daniel's 483 Chaldean 
years — nearly 477 ordinary Julian years. Thus he gets rid of 6 years. Then 
he is one short. To get this back he explains that the 483 years of 360 days 
end May 18th, a.d. 32, and Christ's death took place, the following Passover. 

Marshall agrees with Lloyd in all respects except that he applies the first 
7 X 7 = 49 years to the period of the building of Jerusalem, whilst Lloyd 
applies it to the term of the continuance of prophecy, which accordingly ends 
with Malachi, 445 - 49 = 397 (inclusive reckoning) ; hence the date B.C. 397 
in the A.V. margin of Malachi 1 1 . 

Ussher, Lloyd, Marshall. This represents the orthodox succession of 
Bible Chronologers. Ussher laid the foundation of Bible Chronology in his 
Annals of the Old and New Testaments. Lloyd adopted these with a few 
alterations, printed them for the first time in the margin of the A.V. 
in Lloyd' Bible, a.d. 1701, and explained them (1) in his Tables at 
the end of his Bible ; (2) in his Chronological Tables, printed but never 
published (to be seen in the British Museum), and (3) in some private papers 
given to the world by his chaplain, Benjamin [Marshall, in his Chronological 
Tables with an Appendix to Table 3, and the whole of Table 4, by Lloyd. 
Bishop of Worcester, published 1713. Bishop Lloyd published An 
Exposition of the Prophecy of Seventy Weeks, and Benjamin Marshall A Chrono- 
logical Treatise on the Seventy Weeks of Daniel. These, with Prideaux's 
Historical Connection of the Old and new Testaments, are the standard works 
on the orthodox system of Bible Chronology. They all assume the infalli- 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 281 



bility of Ptolemy's Canon, and bend their interpretation of the Chronology 
of the Old Testament to make it agree therewith. 

The Miraculous Element in the Book of Daniel. 

The extraordinary character of the Book of Daniel, and in particular the 
dated prophecy of Daniel 9, is accounted for by the wonder and the marvel 
of its theme. God is here revealing to men the central purpose, and the final 
goal, of human history, the redemption of the race through the incarnation 
and the death of His own beloved Son. 

This involves a survey of the whole field of human history and a clear 
and convincing proof of the fact that God Himself is a real factor, and not 
merely a factor, but the supreme, the inclusive, the controlling factor. Who, 
whilst He gives men perfect freedom of choice and will, always within limits, 
nevertheless Himself determines what those limits shall be, how long, how 
deep and how broad the stream of time shall flow, bearing upon its bosom the 
ships of the nations with their cargo of human affairs. 

The world-wide survey of human history all down the stream of time is 
seen in Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the great image, and in Daniel's 
complementary vision of the four beasts, where the rise and fall of the 
Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Greek and the Roman Empires are in full 
view. The more immediate contest between Persia and Greece is depicted 
in Daniel's vision of the ram and the he-goat, whilst further down the stream 
of time, the revelation of " the Scripture of Truth " presents us with the story 
of the conflict between Syria and Egypt, the persecution of Antiochus 
Epiphanes, and the appearance on the horizon of the mighty Empire of Rome. 

But all this is but a prelude to the coming of the Son of Man and the 
establishment of the Kingdom of God. 

So, too, the stories of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego in the fiery 
furnace, and Daniel in the den of lions, are meant to convey the lesson that 
in the hands of God all material forces are frangible and ductile. Events 
are produced by causes which appear to be utterly inadequate to account for 
them, because God is moving in the midst of them, directing, controlling, 
protecting and subordinating all the forces of nature, and co-ordinating the 
obedient and the refractory wills of men to the attainment of His own ends. 

Thus we are led to see that we are in the hands of One Who is ever cherishing 
and ever executing a purpose of holy love, and Who has His way with us, 
not we our way with Him. 

From this point of view the element of the extraordinary, the miraculous, 
the supernatural, which bulks so largely in the Book of Daniel, is seen to be 
quite consonant with the theme of the Book, producing an atmosphere in 
which the impressive revelation of the universal sovereignty and the immediate 
and miraculous, as well as the mediate and continuous, activity of God, 
is brought home to intellect and conscience, to heart and will. 

The marvel of the prediction of the exact date of the Messiah's birth is made 
all the more easy of belief, because all the leading events of human history, 
all down the stream of time, are touched upon as the vision grows, and when 



282 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



at last the Messiah does appear He attests the prophetic character of the 
Book which contains the vision, and accompanies His exposition of the 
prophecy with the impressive counsel, " Whoso readeth, let him under- 
stand " (Matt. 24 15 ). 

We complete our Chronology of the Old Testament as follows : — 

BIBLE DATES 

From the Return to the Messiah. 

According to the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament. 

3589. 1st year of Cyrus' sole Kingship (see Chapter 24). 
Add 482 years to the crucifixion. 

From 1st year of Cyrus to cutting off of Messiah = 483 years, 
Dan. 9 25 . 

7X7 = 49 
62 X7 = 434 

483 

1 Deduct 1 for inclusive reckoning. 
482. 482 
4071. Messiah cut off. Date of the crucifixion of Christ. 

Deduct 33 years to date of actual birth of Christ. 
Jesus was about 30 years old when He began His ministr}- 
(Luke 3 23 ). 
His ministry lasted about 3 years. 

1st Passover at which He began His ministry John 2 23 . 
2nd „ „ 5 \ 

3rd ,., ,, 6 4 . 

33. 4th ,, at which He was crucified. ,, 12 \ 
4038. Date of the actual birth of our Lord — Dec. 25th, B.C. 5 (see 
Andrews' Life of our Lord). 
Add 4 years to the end of B.C. 1 and the commencement of 
4. the Christian Era, Anno Domini. 
an. hom. 4042. = B.C. 1 ; and an. hom. 1 — B.C. 4042, according to the 
Chronology of the Old Testament. 
N.B. — According to the received Ptolemaic Chronology, 
an. hom. 1 = 4124, a difference of 82 years. 

The Messiah did appear at the appointed season, and was cut off 483 
years after the going forth of the commandment of Cyrus to restore and to 
build Jerusalem in the 1st year of his sole reign, B.C. 536. 

The Chronology of the Jews is indicated in the tenets of the Herodians, 
who knew that the time for the appearance of the Messiah was at hand, and 
who, in consonance with their gross and worldly conception of His Kingdom, 
regarded Herod himself, the builder of the Temple, as the Messiah (Epiphanius, 
Wavdpiav , The Dmgchest, a Refutation of alt Heresies. Tertullian, De 
-prcEscriptione hcereticorum) . 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 283 



They correctly reckoned the seventy sevens from the reign of Cyrus, and 
found that the term of the 490 years was approaching its completion in the 
time of Herod, in whose days the Messiah was born. But when the true Messiah 
was rejected, and the time for His coming had gone by, they corrupted their 
Chronology and shortened the duration of the Kingdom of Persia, so as to be 
able to apply the prophecy to Theudas and Judas of Galilee (Acts 5 3 6-3 7 ), 
and at length to Bar Cochab, and thus the count of the years was lost, until 
it was falsely restored by the heathen astrologer Ptolemy. 

The wise men from the East were expecting the Messiah at this time, and 
their interpretation of the appearance of the star in the East may have been 
assisted by a knowledge through Daniel, or through some other member of 
the Jewish faith, who instructed them in the prophecies respecting the Star 
that was to come out of Jacob (Numb. 24 17 ), and the time of its appearance 
toward the end of Daniel's 70 weeks. 

The general expectation of the Jews was that the Messiah was now at 
hand ; the time for His appearance had come. Hence the Jews sent priests 
and Levites to John the Baptist to ask him, Who art thou ? " And he 
confessed and denied not, but confessed I am not the Messiah " (John 1 19, 20 ). 
Many of those who heard him and saw his works said " This is of a truth that 
prophet tbiat should come into the world " (John 6 14 , 7 40 ). John the Baptist 
understood the Chronology of Daniel's prophecy, and made it one of the 
bases of his appeal, " Repent ye, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand " 
(Matt. 3 2 ). Later on, when he heard in prison of the works of Christ, he sent 
two of his disciples and said unto Him, " Art thou He that should come, or 
•do we look for another ? " (Matt. 11 3 ). 

But the most definite and specific statement of the interval between the 
going forth of the commandment, and the appearance of the Messiah, is given 
in the opening message of Jesus Himself, in which He strikes the three great 
bell notes of the Gospel (Mark 1 1 5 ) . 

" The time is fulfilled . . 
The Kingdom of God is at hand : 
Repent ye and believe the good news." 

There is a most minute and exact correspondence between the other 
prophecies of Daniel and their fulfilment. Compare, for example, the prophecy 
of the four great Kings of Persia (Dan. 11 2 ), and the appearance of Cyrus, 
Cambyses, Darius and Xerxes ; the vision of the ram and the he-goat 
(Dan. 8), and its fulfilment in the conquest of Asia by Alexander the Great ; 
the prophecy of the mighty King (Dan. n 3 ) and the appearance of Alexander 
the Great ; the prophecy of the conflict between the King of the North and 
the King of the South (Dan. n 5-19 ), and the wars between the Seleucids of 
Syria and the Ptolemys of Egypt ; the prophecy of the rise of the vile person 
(Dan. 11 21 ), and the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes ; the prophecy of 
his checkmate by the arrival of ships of Chittim (Dan. 11 30 ), and the banner 
of Rome flung round the infant Ptolemy ; and then the closing vision of the 
time of trouble such as never was, seen through the haze that envelops the 
distant hills that fringe the borderland of eternity, where many of them that 



284 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



sleep in the dust awake, " some to everlasting life and some to shame and 
everlasting contempt " (Lan. 12 2 .) 

The perversion of this ancient prophecy into a vaticinium post eventum 
et ex eventu originated in the attack of Porphyry the deadly enemy of the 
Christian faith. It has sent its ringing echoes of unbelief all down the ages, 
and it is heard in our midst to-day, but those whose insight into the ways 
of God is clear and keen, and whose touch with God is close and sure, 
will see in these prophecies and their fulfilment a confirmation of their faith 
in the incorruptible integrity of the word of God. 

The cutting off of the Messiah, at the precise moment at which it was 
foretold, has become the pivot of the world's history, and His birth the central 
epoch of its Chronology. 

" Here I stand." Athanasius contra mundum. The received Chronology 
is false. The Chronology of the Old Testament is true. 

Chapter XXVIII. Comparative Chronology. 

The Year of Messiah's Birth according to the Canon of Ptolemy, an. hom. 4120. 

Claudius Ptolem^eus, the originator of the Ptolemaic astronomy, superseded 
by the Copernican System, a.d. 1530, when Nicolas Copernicus (1473-1543) 
published his great epoch-making work, De Orbium Revolutionists, 
flourished at Alexandria in Egypt in the 2nd Century a.d. He was both a 
learned man and a great man. He gripped the phenomena of the heavens, 
and welded them into such a comprehensive system, that the Ptolemaic 
astronomy maintained its hold on the mind of Europe for a period of 14 
Centuries, in spite of the fact that the Copernican astronomy; which makes 
the sun the centre of the solar system, was taught in its essentials by 
Pythagoras (b.c. 582-c. 500), who explained the motions of the heavenly bodies 
in his Harmony of the Spheres some 600 years before Ptolemy was born. 

The Ptolemaic Astronomy has gone. But the Ptolemaic Chronology 
remains. And since the actual count of the years of the Persian period, between 
Darius Hystaspes and Alexander the Great, has been lost, no one will ever 
be able to replace the erroneous Chronology of Ptolemy, by producing a 
positive Chronology of the period in harmony with the truth, unless the gap 
should be filled by the discovery of ancient Monuments of this period in the 
East. 

One reason why Ptolemy's Canon has maintained its hold upon the modern 
mind is because there is no other system which bridges the gulf of time from 
the 8th Century B.C. to the 2nd Century a.d. All other systems fail at the 
same point. For the later Persian period Ptolemy is the only witness, his 
Canon the only strand connecting the events of antiquity with those of modern 
times. 

His Canon exists in three forms. The genuine original is found in Theon, 
Ptolemy's successor in the chair of astronomy at Alexandria. Two other 
lists of reigns, based on Ptolemy's Canon, are preserved by Syncellus 
(a.d. 792), the one called The Astronomical Canon, the other The 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 285 

Ecclesiastical Canon. In these the names and dates are corrected, interpolated 
and modified in such a way as to present, in tabular form, the chronological 
opinions of Syncellus. 

Another reason for the high esteem in which Ptolemy's Canon is held 
is the quasi-infallibility which is attached to a mathematical demonstration, 
and which has been transferred by Ptolemy's readers to all the inferences 
and conclusions embodied in his Canon. 

Ptolemy's method of determining dates is the astronomical method of 
the calculation of eclipses. He also had access to the information contained 
in Berosus, (b.c. 356-323). He based his Chronology upon the calculations 
of Eratosthenes (b. B.C. 276) and Apollodorus (2nd Century B.C.), and he had 
before him all the information contained in Diodorus Siculus (fl. a.d. 8), and 
all the literature of Greece and Rome and Alexandria. 

The main thing to note is the fact that he is not an original authority, 
not a witness recording contemporary events, still less is he a standard by 
which to correct other witnesses. He is a late compiler, living in the 2nd 
Century a.d., and constructing a scheme of Chronology covering nearly 
1,000 years, from B.C. 747 to a.d. 137. 

Prideaux puts the authority of Ptolemy's Canon above that of every other 
human writer. He says : — 

" Ptolemy's Canon being fixed by the eclipses, the truth of it may at any 
time be demonstrated by astronomical calculations, and no one hath ever 
calculated those eclipses but hath found them fall in the times where placed ; 
and, therefore, this being the surest guide which we have in Chronology, and it 
being also verified by its agreement everywhere with the Holy Scripture, 
it is not for the authority of any other human writer whatsoever to be receded 
from." 

Lloyd and Marshall speak of it in similar terms. Halma regards it as 
" the most precious monument of antiquity." 

An examination of the table of eclipses, gathered from the works of 
Ptolemy by M. Halma, shows that whilst there are eclipses recorded in the 1st 
and 2nd years of Merodach-baladan (Mar. 19, 720, Mar. 8, 719 and Sep. 1, 
719), the 5th year of Nabopolassar (Apl. 22, 600), the 7th of Cambyses (July 
16, 522), and the 20th and 31st years of Darius Hystaspes (Nov. 19, 501 and 
Ap. 25, 490), as soon as we reach this point, at which the narrative of the Old 
Testament closes, and the late Persian period begins, there is from the 31st 
year of Darius to the Archonship of Phanostratus, no eclipse whatever on 
record, and consequently no astronomical data by which to fix the duration 
of the reigns of the Kings of the later Persian period. 

Apart from three eclipses recorded by the Chaldees on Dec. 23, 381, and 
June 18, 380, in the Archonship of Phanostratus, and on Dec. 10, 380, in the 
Archonship of Evander, there is not a single eclipse on record from the 31st 
year of Darius to the death of Alexander the Great. 

Ptolemy's Canon is compiled from Chaldean records in which eclipses 
of the moon alone are registered, the Chaldean astronomers not being able 
to calculate the eclipses of the sun. 

So that for the construction of that part of Ptolemy's Canon which covers 



286 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



the interval of 109 years between B.C. 490 and 381, eclipses are entirely 
wanting, and Ptolemy has to fall back upon the same materials as other 
Chronologers. At the very point at which the Old Testament, the Apocryphal 
literature, Josephus, the classics, the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Persia and 
the tablets of Babylonia all fail, Ptolemy fails also. These 82 years are years 
that never existed except in the constructive imagination of the Chronologer. 
They are years in which the sun never set, and on which the light never shone. 

Of course, if one could be quite sure of the exact date of an eclipse, like the 
Eclipse of Thales, and could identify it with an event like the Battle of Halys, 
such an eclipse would measure the lapse of time between that event and the 
present day, and also between that event and every other event connected 
with it by a chain of continuous, contemporary historical records. 

But the date of the Eclipse of Thales and the Battle of Halys is quite 
unknown to us. All that we know of it is what we are told in Herodotus, 
Book i, Chap. 74, where he says : — 

" War broke out between Cyaxares the Mede and Alyattes the Lydian, 
and continued for five years with various success. In the course of it the 
Medes gained many victories over the Lydians, and the Lydians also gained 
many victories over the Medes. A combat took place in the 6th year, in the 
course of which, just as the battle was growing warm, day was in a sudden 
changed into night. This event had been foretold by Thales the Milesian, 
who forewarned the Ionians of it, fixing for it the very year in which it actually 
took place." 

The date of this eclipse as fixed by Volney was B.C. 625. Clinton made it 
B.C. 603. Ideler said no eclipse fulfilled the conditions except that of B.C. 
610. Later still, Mr. Hind and Prof. Airy brought it down to B.C. 585. 
The Eclipse of Thales has been placed in 607 (Calvisius), 603 (Costard, Montucla 
and Kennedy), 601 (Ussher), 597 (Petavius, Marsham, Bouhier and Larcher), 
and 585 (Pliny, Scaliger, Newton, Ferguson, Vignoles and Jackson). George 
Rawlinson concludes a paragraph on the subject by saying, " It may be doubted 
whether astronomical science has yet attained to such exactness with respect 
to the line of solar eclipses as to justify the adoption of its results as the basis 
of a chronological system. All astronomical calculations are uncertain since 
they assume the uniformity of the moon's motion which is a very doubtful 
point, and since Professor Airy made his calculations for Mr. Bosanqiu t, 
which brought the date of the Eclipse of Thales down to B.C. 5S5, certain 
irregularities in the moon's movements have been discovered." 

In any case, since there are never less than 2 eclipses in any year, usually 
4, and sometimes as many as 7, and since an eclipse repeats itself more or 
less completely every 18 years and a few days, and much more completely 
every 54 years and a month, there will always be an eclipse available within 
a reasonable number of years with which to identify any recorded eclipse, 
the date of which we desire to fix ; apart from which, it is a perfect paradox 
to contemplate the fixing of the current of the history of the entire world 
by the motions of the moon, the very type and symbol of instability. 

The method of astronomical calculation is, therefore, by no means an 
infallible guide to Chronology, but even if it were an infallible guide, Ptolemy 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 287 



could make no use of it, for he had no recorded eclipses to work the method 
with, during the later Persian period, the only part of his Chronology which 
is in dispute. 

We have seen that the received Chronology and the received dating of the 
Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, which identifies the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7 and 
Nehemiah with Artaxerxes Longimanus, lands us in the absurdity of making 
the leading men of the period live to an impossible age, 

Ezra, 141 in the 20th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus. 

Nehemiah, 103 years older in the 32nd year of Artaxerxes Longimanus 

than when he returned to Jerusalem in the 1st year of Cyrus. 
Mordecai 123 in the 12th year of Xerxes. 

Now, if the great and improbable age of these Biblical characters is due 
simply to an error in the Chronology of the period, it will follow that other 
men, belonging to profane history, but living in the same period, will also 
be represented as living to a similarly great and improbable age, and if such 
aged men are found in the history of the period, it will be a confirmation of 
the fact that some error has found its ways into the received Chronology. 

The Kings will be represented as reigning for an extraordinary number of 
years, or fictitious Kings will be invented, the Jewish high priests will hold 
office for very long periods, and some men mentioned by the same name at 
great intervals apart will appear to be too old to be identical, and will be 
split up into two, an earlier and a later, both bearing the same name and title, 
and appearing in many respects as if they were one and the same person. 

And this is exactly what we find. First, take the case of Josephus. Here 
we have Sanballat old enough to be Pekah of Samaria in the 20th year of Arta- 
xerxes Longimanus, B.C. 445, and still living when Alexander besieges Gaza, 
B.C. 332, at the age of 113 plus however old he was when he opposed Nehemiah 
in B.C. 445, at the building of the wall, when he was Governor of Samaria. 
The alternative is to split him up and say there were two Sanballat s. 

Again, during this period, the Jewish high priests hold office for long terms, 
and the contemporary Kings appear to have unusually long reigns. Thus : — ■ 



Jewish High Priests. Kings of Persia. 



Joshua 


.. 56 


Darius I 


36 


Joiakim 


36 


Xerxes 


. . 21 


Eliashib 


34 


Artaxerxes I . . 


.. 41 


Joiada 


36 


Darius II 


.. 19 


Johanan 


34 


Artaxerxes II. . 


46 


Jaddua 


.. 17 


Artaxerxes III 


21 


Average 35. 




Average 30. 





288 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



Kings of Macedon. 



iEropas 


26 


Alectus 


29 


Amyntas I 


50 


Alexander 


43 


Perdiccas II . . 


4i 


Archelaus 


14 


Amyntas II . . 


19 


Alorites 


4 


Perdiccas III 


6 


Philip 


24 


Alexander the Great 


12 



Average 25. 



Kings of Sparta. 



Agasicles 


.. 41 


Ariston 


38 


Demaratus 


35 


Leotychides . . 


. . 22 


Archidamus II 


42 


Agis II 


. . 30 


Agesilaus II . . 


36 


Archidamus III 


. . 23 


Agis III 


.. 8 


Eudamidas I 


33 



Average 30. 



The following aged men are mentioned in the history of Greece for this 
period : — 



Xenophanes . . 


. 141. 


Timaeus, Plutarch. 


Pythagoras . . 


• 99- 


Aristogenus, Jamblicus. 


iEschylus (69 or) . 


• 154- 


Author of Life of ^Eschylus. 


Isocrates 


. 99. 


Corsini. 


Cratinus 


• 97- 


Lucian. 


Sophocles 


• 95- 


Lucian. 


Democritus . . 


. 104. 


Lucian. 


} > • • • 


. 109. 


Laertius. 


Hippocrates . . 


. 109. 


Suidas. 


Timotheus . . 


. 97. 


Suidas. 



The following have very long productive periods or floruits. 

Plato (comic poet) . . 63 years, Scholiast apud Plutarch. 

Parmenides . . 68 ,, Laertius. 

Gorgias (ambassador) 79 „ Suidas with Pausanias. 

Antiphanes (comic poet) 71 „ Suidas with Athenaeus. 

Aristophanes (comic poet) 53 ,, Internal evidence. 

Aristophon (ambassador) 63 Demosthenes. 
The following contradictions, variations or discrepancies, emerge between 
the Chronology of Ptolemy's Canon and other sources for this period : — 

B.C. 480. Birth of Euripides^Plutarch, Eratosthenes). 
But the Parian Marble says B.C. 485. 

B.C. 475. Cimon took Scyros (Plutarch). 

Bentley alters the date to B.C. 469, as " otherw ise it would be 7 years 
before the oracle would be obeyed." 

B.C. 471. Flight of Themistocles, who had been banished from Athens, to 
the Persian court of King Artaxerxes Longimanus (Thucydides, 

Charon of Lampsacus). 
But, according to Ptolemy's Canon, Artaxerxes did not come to the 
throne till 7 years after this, in B.C. 464. 



The romance of bible chronology. 289 

B.C. 464. Charon of Lampsacus (born B.C. 554) still writing history. Creuzer 
rejects the date of his birth, " because it would make him 90 
years old." 

B.C. 439. Pindar completes his 80th year (Scholiast apud Thomas Magister). 
But Thomas Magister makes him 66 and Suidas 65. 

B.C. 424. Death of Artaxerxes Longimanus, who reigned 40 years (Thucydides 
Diodorus), 41 including the odd months of Xerxes II and Sogdianus 
(Ptolemy's Canon), 42 (Ctesias). 

B.C. 404. Artaxerxes II Mnemon reigned 40 years (Eusebius, Alexandrine 
Chronicle), 42 years (Clement of Alexandria), 43 years (Diodorus), 
46 years (Ptolemy's Canon), 62 years (Plutarch). The cuneiform 
tablets say he began to reign B.C. 395, which, according to A. H. Sayce, 
gives Darius II Nothus, 29 years instead of 19 as in Ptolemy's Canon. 

B.C. 358. Artaxerxes III Ochus (Ptolemy's Canon), B.C. 361 (Diodorus). 
Reigned 21 years (Ptolemy's Canon), 23 (Diodorus). 

B.C. 356. Death of Alexander of Pherae (Diodorus). But his death is 
mentioned by Xenophon, who died 3 years before. 

B.C. 340. Aristophanes floruit B.C. 403, i.e. 63 years before this date, and was 
ambassador B.C. 411, i.e. 71 years before this. Clinton says, " the 
consideration of dates proves that he was not the same man," and 
that " the text of Demosthenes, who gives the facts, must be corrupt." 

From these facts it will be seen that the testimony of Ptolemy's Canon 
is contradicted at various points by many competent witnesses. The facts 
also suggest the possibility that the extraordinary ages and long floruits of 
many distinguished men, may be due to an error, by which the Chronology of 
the period may have been unduly extended some 50 or 60 years. 

Clinton says, " The government of Pisistratus at Athens (b.c. 560) is marked 
as being the first date in Grecian history from which an unbroken series of 
dates can be deduced in regular succession," and he gives a list of the Archons 
of Athens which practically fills each year of the whole period. 

It is not denied that such a list was compiled by the early Chronologers of 
Greece about 100 years after the death of Alexander the Great, but it is affirmed 
that they were not derived from authentic contemporary sources. 

Respecting the period in question, the later Persian Empire, from Xerxes 
to Alexander the Great, Clinton says, " From B.C. 480 to B.C. 303 we have an 
unbroken series (of Archons) by the combined assistance of Diodorus, A.u. 8, 
and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, B.C. 70 - 6." But these are not contemporary 
witnesses. They are late compilers, constructing a scheme of Chronology, 
dependent upon the conjectural results of Eratosthenes (b.c. 276) and 
Apollodorus (2nd century B.C.). 

The celebrated Parian marble was purchased by Mr. William Petty for 
Thomas, Earl of Arundel, in the year a.d. 1624. It was brought to England 
and placed in the gardens of Arundel House, Strand, a.d. 1627. It appears 
to have been found in the Island of Paros. The Chronicle is engraved on a 
marble slab 3ft. 7 by 2ft. 7 and 5 inches thick. It gives the principal events 



290 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



of Greek history from its legendary beginnings to the year B.C. 264, in which 
it was executed. It gives the date of the reign of Cecrops, the flood of 
Deucalion, the trial between the gods Mars and Neptune, the planting of corn by 
Ceres, the floruits of Hesiod and Homer, the reign of Cyrus, Darius (Marathon), 
and Xerxes (Thermopylae), the dates of the poets ./Eschylus, Sophocles and 
Euripides. 

Touching the late Persian period, the only Kings of Persia which it mentions 
after Xerxes are (1) The brother of Cyrus the younger (Artaxerxes Mnemon), 
who died B.C. 357, and (2) his son Artaxerxes III Ochus. This is remarkable 
in itself, but when compared with (1) the history of this period in Josephus 
and (2) the tenor of the Jewish and Persian tradition of the Chronology of 
this period, it suggests very forcibly that the Chronology of the latter part of 
the Persian period from Xerxes to Alexander the Great has been exaggerated, 
and that the 5 Kings who fill this period : — 



were perhaps in fact only 2 or 3 multiplied into five in order to fill the gap made 
by the artificial enlargenent of the Chronology by some 82 years more or less. 
The marble gives the dates of the Annual Archons for the following years : — 

I. Before the death of Xerxes, B.C. 465. 



Artaxerxes I 
Darius II 
Artaxerxes II 
Artaxerxes III 
Darius III 



41 years. 

19 „ 
46 „ 



21 
4 



B.C. B.C. 



B.C. 



B.C. 




508 

495 
489 
486 
481 



472 

470. 
468 



II. After the death of Xerxes, B.C. 465. 

B.C. 

4^3 \ 




408 — Darius II Nothus. 



403 
400 



380 

S77 

Artaxerxes 11 Mnemon. 



373 
37i 
3^8 

358 



355 — Artaxerxes III Ochus. 
264 — Ptolemy Philadelphia. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



291 



It will be seen that only 15 Archons are given for the period of 134 years 
from the death of Xerxes, B.C. 465 to the 1st year of Alexander the Great. 

The gaps were filled in by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Diodorus, who 
flourished some 300 years afterwards. 

Clinton accepts the testimony of Diodorus for this period, although 
elsewhere he truly points out that Diodorus is not an independent witness, 
but merely a reproducer of the approximate computations of the conjectural 
Chronologers Eratosthenes and Apollodorus. 

The truth is, there are no authentic records of the late Persian period in 
existence. The method of measuring time by means of Olympiads was not 
adopted till more than 60 years after the death of Alexander the Great. It 
was not used in the Parian Chronicle. A Chronology was framed by 
Eratosthenes and Apollodorus, and all the known facts of past history were 
made to fit into it. Hence discrimination is needed to enable us to separate 
what is really certain from what is mere matter of opinion and conjecture. 

The period of the later Persian Empire from Xerxes to Alexander the 
Great, is the great gap or blank in the Chronology of the world's history. For 
this period Thucydides is our only authority. 

Herodotus is the historian of the Persian war which ended B.C. 479. 
Thucydides is the historian of the Peloponnesian war, which commenced 
B.C. 432. 

The history of the interval between B.C. 479 and B.C. 432 has never been 
written. 

" I have gone out of my way," says Thucydides, " to speak of this period, 
because the writers who have preceded me treat either of Hellenic affairs 
previous to the Persian invasion or of that invasion itself. The intervening 
portion of history has been omitted by all of them, with the exception of 
Hellanicus, and he, where he has touched upon it, in his Attic history, is 
very brief and inaccurate in his Chronology." 

The one event which Thucydides does mention in his brief and hurried 
summary of this unwritten period, is the flight of Themistocles, and just 
here, at the very point which he does touch the Chronology of the period, he 
is in flat contradiction to Ptolemy's Canon. Writing of the year B.C. 471, 
Thucydides says, Themistocles had been ostracised and was living at Argos. 
Lacedaemonians and Athenians sent officers to arrest him. He fled to the 
Corcyreans. They conveyed him to the neighbouring continent. The officers 
constantly enquired in which direction he had gone, and pursued him every- 
where. He stopped at the house of Admetus the King of the Molossians, 
who protected him and would not give him up to his pursuers, though they 
pressed him do so. And as Themistocles wanted to go to the King (of 
Persia), Admetus sent him on foot across the country to the sea at Pydna 
(which was in the Kingdom of Alexander). There he found a merchant vessel 
sailing to Ionia, in which he embarked. It was driven by a storm to Naxos, 
but at length he arrived at Ephesus. Themistocles then went up the 
country with one of the Persians who dwelt on the coast, and sent a letter to 
Artaxerxes the son of Xerxes, who had just succeeded to the throne. 

According to Ptolemy's Canon, Artaxerxes the son of Xerxes is Artaxerxes 



292 THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 

Longimanus. In 471 Xerxes was in the 15th year of his reign, and he 
reigned 21 years, after which Artabanus reigned 7 months, and Artaxerxes 
Longimanus, who was now, on the arrival of Themistocles, only a boy of 
14, did not come to the throne till 7 years later, in B.C. 464. 

The case then stands thus. For the period from Xerxes to Alexander 
the Great we have no authentic contemporary record of the Chronology of 
the Persian Kings. The only strand that continues the Chronology throughout 
this period is Ptolemy's Canon, a late compilation put together 600 or 700 
years after the events it tabulates, the absence of authentic data being made 
good by the estimates of the early Chronologers, who planned the scheme of 
the Chronology, and filled in the intervals as best they could, using where 
necessary what Clinton calls, " the method of conjecture." 

Thucydides, the most accurate and reliable of all the early writers on the 
subject, gives a brief summary of the leading events of a period, the history 
of which has never been written (except by Hellanicus, whose Chronology is 
inaccurate), and mentions one dated event which happened in the year B.C. 
471. This event is dated in Ptolemy's Canon 7 years later than the time at 
which it occurred. 

No blame attaches to Ptolemy for this. He did the best he could with the 
materials at his disposal. But real blame does attach to the modern scholar, 
who refuses to recognise a proved error, and continues to regard as an 
infallible chronological guide, a table of reigns, which, as regards this part of 
the Persian period, is incapable of verification, suspect as to its source and 
false in its facts. 

The reconstruction of the true Chronology of the late Persian and the Greek 
period, from the close of the Old Testament Records, B.C. 488, to the Christian 
Era, does not come within the scope of the present work. It must be left 
over for investigation by other workers in this department. It is enough for 
our purpose that the received Ptolemaic Chronology of this period has been 
shown to be false and cannot therefore be resorted to as a court of final appeal, 
nor even regarded as a trustworthy witness against the historical data, 
testimony, evidence or proof, of the Chronology of the Old Testament. 

PTOLEMAIC DATES. 

From the Return to the Messiah. 
According to Clinton and modern Chronologers generally. 

AN. HOM. 

3589 = 1st year of Cyrus' sole Kingship (sec Chapter 24). 

535. Add 535 years to B.C. 1. (B.C. 536-535=B.C. 1. 
4124=^ B.C. 1; and AN. HOM. i-b.c. 4124. 



Clinton's dales are based on Ptolemy's Canon. 
Ptolemy's Canon is based on the conjectural Greek Chronology 
of Eratosthenes, the lather of Chronology. 



THE ROMANCE OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 



293 



The Chronology of Eratosthenes is based, not upon historical 
data, testimony, evidence or proof, but upon his own sub- 
jective estimate of the probable length of the reigns, 
generations and successions of Kings, Ephors and 
Priestesses in early Greek history. 

In any case it is only an approximate and an uncertain 
estimate. 

According to the prophecy of Daniel it is 82 years longer 
than the truth. 

According to Ptolemy an. hom. i = B.C. 4124 
According to Daniel an. hom. i = B.C. 4042 



A difference of . . 82 years. 

The present year of the world (a.d. 1913) is, 

According to Ptolemy 4124 + 1913 = 6037. 
According to Daniel 4042 + 1913 =z 5955. 

Yet 45 years, and the sixth millennium of the world's history will be ful- 
filled, and the seventh millennium ushered in. 

" Surely I come quickly, Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus." — Rev. 22 20 . 




INDEX. 



Aaron, 134-136. 

Abdon, 143, 147-148, 152, 156. 

Abijah (Abijam), 169, 177, 227. 

Abimelech, 142, 146-148, 152, 156. 

Abraham, 68, 77-87, 11 3- 11 8, 124, 128. 

129, 140. 
Abulfaragus, 47. 
Adam, 63-65, 74, 81, 84-87. 
Africanus, 44, 74-75, 80-81, 85, 87, 95-96, 

138, 153, 162. 
Agassiz, 91. 

Ahab, 173, 176-182, 189, 194-199, 228. 
Ahasuerus (Cambyses), 239-240. 
Ahasuerus (Darius Hystaspes), 240-257. 
Ahaz, 173, 186-188, 200, 204, 217. 228. 
Ahaziah of Israel, 173, 176-182, 194, 229. 
Ahaziah of Judah, 170, 173-182, 189, 227. 
Airy, Prof., 286. 

Alexander the Great, 18-25, 104,232, 256. 
291. 

Alfred the Great, 55. 
Amaziah, 157, 183-185, 227. 
Ammon, 139, 144-149, 152, 156. 
Amon, 189, 228. 
Amos, 185. 
Amram, 127, 128. 
Amraphel, 1 30-1 31. 
Anderson, Sir Robert, 54. 
Anno Hominis, 64. 
Anthropology, 87, 92-106. 
Antiquity of Man, 87, 92-106. 
Apocrypha, 21-22, 243, 267, 271-273. 
Apollodorus, 36, 104-105, 285, 291. 
Appian, 29. 

Aramaic papyri, 26-27. 

Archaeology, 27, 87, 92-106. 

Arioch, 1 30-131. 

Arogus, 233, 262, 266. 

Arphaxad, 68, 69, 75, 77, 80-87. 

Arrian, 29, 257. 

Arses, 233, 262, 266. 

Artaxerxes (Pseudo-Smerdis), 239-240. 

Artaxerxes (Darius Hystaspes), 240-257. 

Artaxerxes I, Longimanus, 233, 238, 248, 

255, 262-266, 270-272, 287-292. 
Artaxerxes II, Mnemon, 233, 262, 265, 

266, 289. 

Artaxerxes III, Ochus, 233, 262, 266, 

289-290. 
Asa, 173, 174, 177, 227. 
Aser, 55. 

Ashur-bani-pal, 15, 196, 217-219. 
Asnapper, 219. 



Assyrian Cuneiform Inscriptions, 26, 39- 

41, 195-221. 
Assyrian Eponym Canon, 196, 219-221. 
Astyages (Darius the Mede), 22, 231, 263, 

268. 

Athaliah, 174, 175, 179-183, 189, 227. 
Authorised Version, 86, 128-129, 154, 220. 

Baasha, 170, 173, 174, 177, 179, 228. 
Baba Bathra, 140, 150. 
Babylon, 97-101, 163. 

Babylonian Cuneiform Inscriptions, 221, 
257-260. 

Barak, 139, 146-148, 152, 156, 168. 
Beecher, Willis J., 40, 55, 138, 153, 162, 

165, 169-171, 196, 202-203, 220. 
Behistun Inscription, 27, 244, 257, 260- 

261, 268, 269. 
Bel and the Dragon, 22, 267. 
Belshazzar, 231, 237, 258-259, 263. 
Berosus, 17-18, 32, 82, 85, 92, 98, 100, 263, 

268. . 
Beveridge, 49. 

Bible Difficulties, 11 8-1 23, 169-176, 181- 

182, 186, 223-224. 
Biblical Criticism, 88, 106-113, 127-130. 
Black Obelisk, 198. 
Blair, 52, 138. 
Botta, 195-221. 
Breasted, 94, 162, 172, 191. 
Bredow, 52. 
British Association, 89. 
British Museum, 47, 97, 130, 162. 
Brown, Prof. E. G., 260. 
Browne, Harold, 54, 138, 230. 
Budge, E. A. W., 93-96, 100, 126, 162, 196, 

212, 220. 
Bunsen, Baron, 94. 95, 162. 
Buret de Langchamps, 53. 
Burgon, 154. 

Cainan, 65. 74. 75. 

Cainan, the second, 53, 80, 84-86. 

Caleb, 135-136. 

Calvisius, 48, 286. 

Cambyses, 233, 239, 264, 268-269. 

Canons of Credibility. 56, 58-61. 

Censorinus, 31. 41-43. 72, 171, 193. 

Chasms, 67-69, 78-79, 124-125, 137-146, 

149-152. 
Chedorlaomer. 1 30- 131. 
China. 102-103. 

Chronicon Paschalc, 47, 138, 153. 



I N D EX — con tinned. 



Chronology, Long and Short : 

Patriarchal, 74-77, 79-87, 92. 

Assyrian, 39-41. 

Babylonian, 99-100. 

Egyptian, 95, 160-162. 
Cicero, 29. 

Classic Literature, 28-33. 

Clement of Alexandria, 44-45, 138, 153. 

Clinton, 31, 44, 53, 60, 82, 92, 99, 137, 

138, 153, 154, 158, 173-174, 176, 286, 

289, 291, 292. 
Companion Bible, 55, 108, 139, 153, 166, 

169, 179, 185, 223. 
Confucius, 103. 
Copernicus, 20, 284. 
Cornelius Nepos, 30. 
Ctesias, 99-100, 104, 257, 267-269. 
Cuvier, 92. 

Cushan, 137-139, 142, 145-148, 152, 156, 
157- 

Cyxares, 21-22, 163, 267, 268. 

Cyrus, 19-25, 237-239, 251, 259-260, 263, 

267-268, 277-279, 282, 287. 
Cyrus' Tablet and Cyrus' Cylinder, 259- 

260, 268. 

Dana, 91. 

Daniel, 20, 24,25, 222, 223, 231,233, 235, 

239, 275-284. 
Darius the Mede, 22, 205, 231, 233, 237, 

258, 268, 273, 276. 
Darius I, Hystaspes, 19-25, 233, 238, 239, 

240-274, 277. 
Darius II, Nothus, 19, 24, 233, 262, 265, 

266, 290. 

Darius III, Codomannus, 19, 23, 24, 266. 
David, 143, 156-157, 165-169. 
Dawkins, Prof. Boyd, 89. 
Dawson, Sir J. W., 89. 
Day (Heb. yom), 63. 

Days (Heb. yamim = a year), 252-253. 

Deborah, 139. 

Demetrius, 86. 

Denny, Sir Edward, 54. 

Des Vignoles, 50, 138, 286. 

Diocletian Era, 33. 

Diodorus Siculus, 29, 242, 257, 285, 289, 
291. 

Dion Cassius, 29. 
Dionysius Exiguus, 33. 
Dionysius of Hallicarnassus, 28, 105, 289, 
291. 

Dodwell, 51, 153. 
Du Halde, 103. 

Eber, 75, 77, 80, 83, 84, 87. 
Eclipse of Thales, 34, 286. 
Eclipses, 34, 285-286. 
Edkins, Dr., 102. 
Egibi Tablets, 257-258. 
Eglon, 142, 146-148, 152, 156. 
Egyptian Dates, 27, 92-97, 125-127, 
160-162, 171-172, 191-193. 

2 95 



Egyptian Monuments, 125-127, 191-193. 

Ehud, 142, 146-148, 152, 156, 168. 

Elah, 176, 228, 194. 

Elephantine papyrus, 26-27. 

Eli, 140-143, 147-152, 156, 168. 

Eli-Saul Connection, 67, 149-153. 

Elian, 242, 268. 

Eliashib, 246, 255, 256. 

Elon, 143, 147-148, 152, 156. 

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 93, 10 t, 197. 

Enoch, 65, 74, 75. 

Enos, 65, 74. 

Ephraem Syrus, 45-46. 

Epiphanius, 8, 45, 86, 282. 

Ephorus, 35, 105. 

Eratosthenes, 36, 44, 104-105, 285, 291- 
293- 

Esar-haddon, 196, 215-217. 
Esau, 114. 

Esdras, 21, 267, 272, 273. 
Esther, 157, 250, 266, 267, 272, 273. 
Eusebius, 17, 31-32, 45, 80, 86, 94, 95, 

96, 98, 99, 138, 153, 162. 
Evander, 285. 

Evil-merodach, 231, 258, 263. 
Evolution, 87-89, 101, 110. 
Exodus, 118, 124-135, 142, 155-162. 
Ezekiel, 224, 225. 

Ezra, 157, 238, 250, 252, 256-257, 264, 
270, 272. 

Faussett, R. G., 35, 63, 86, 116. 
Firdusi, 18-19, 23. 
Flood, 69-73, 9 2 - 
Fotheringham, D. R., 54, 167. 

Ganz, 244. 

Genealogical Lists, 65, 77, 79, 247, 253- 
256. 

Geology, 63, 87, 89-92. 

Gideon, 142. 146-148, 152, 156, 168. 

Ginsburg, Dr., 194. 

Girdlestone, Canon, 54. 

Gregorie, John, 85. 

Greswell, 54. 

Gutschmidt, 98. 

Haggai, 269. 

Hales, 34, 52-53, 92, 138. 153, 154, 158, 

166, 169, 172-173. 
Halma, 54, 285. 
Halys, 286. 
Ham, 68. 
Haran, 68, 79. 
Haynes, 101. 
Heeren, 52. 

Hellanicus, 35, 105, 291. 

Hellenic v. Hebraic Influences, 15-16, 31. 

Herodotus, 22, 28, 99-100, 104, 242, 257, 

259, 264, 267-269, 273-274. 291. 
Heshbon, 139, 140, 146-149. 
Hezekiah, 174-176, 186-188, 209-214, 228. 



INDEX — continued. 



Hind, 286. 

Hoshea, 174, 175, 186, 188, 201-204, 229. 

Ibzan, 143, 147-148, 152, 156. 
Ideler, 54, 286. 
Interregnums, 184-186. 
Isaac, 68, 113-114, 118, 128. 
Isaiah, 188, 205, 209. 
Iscah, 79. 

Ishmael, 68, 117, 118, 128. 
Isra-El, 159-160. 

Jabin, 139-142, 146-148, 152, 156, 158. 
Jackson, John, 51, 92, 153, 154, 158, 286. 
Jackson, Prof. A. V. W., 263. 
Jacob and his descendants, 84, 1 13-123. 
Jaddua, 23, 255-256, 266. 
Jair, 140-148, 152. 156. 
Japheth, 68. 
Jared, 65, 74, 75. 
Jastrow, Prof., 10 1, 163. 
Jehoahaz of Israel, 183, 229. 
Jehoahaz of Judah, 174, 189, 228. 
Jehoiachin (Jeconiah), 190, 223-225, 228. 
Jehoiakim, 175, 176, 189, 150, 222-225, 
228. 

Jehoash of Israel, 173, 174, 183, 184, 229. 
Jehoash of Judah, 173, 174, 182, 183, 227. 
Jehoshaphat, 170-176, 194, 199. 
Jehoram of Israel, 173-182, 194, 229. 
Jehoram of Judah, 170-182, 194, 227. 
Jehozadak, 255-270. 
Jehu, 174-175, 182-183, 199, 229. 
Jeremiah, 189, 223-227. 
Jeremiah 25 1 , 32, 44, 175, 189-190. 
Jeroboam I, 169, 174-177, 228. 
Jeroboam II, 157, 174, 183-185, 229. 
Jerome, 46. 86. 

Jeshua (Joshua), 238, 239, 246, 247, 254, 

255, 278. 
Jezebel, 179-182, 186, 189. 
Joash, see Jehoash. 
Jochebed, 127-128. 
Johns, C. H. W., 196-221. 
Joiada, 256, 266. 
Joiakim, 246, 247, 255. 
Jonah, 185. 

Jonathan (Johanan), 255. 256. 

Joseph, 66, 1 1 3-1 26 

Joseph-Moses Connection, 67, 124-125. 

Josephus," 19, 22-23, 3 2 > 74-76, 80-81, 85, 
94, 99, 116, 129, 138, 153, 166, 171, 
172, 184, 246, 257, 263-268, 271, 273, 
275, 287. 

Joshua, 135-138 

Joshua- Judges Connection, 67. 137-146. 
Josiah, 175, 188, 189. 190, 228 
Jotham, 170, 173, 185, 186, 204, 228 
Judas of Galilee, 283. 
Judges, 137-149- 
Julius Caesar, 30. 

Kelvin, Lord, 89. 

Kennedy, 51, 63, 69-72, 286. 

2 06 



Kenrick, 102. 

Kent, Dr. C. F., 54, 126, 127-130. 
Kent's Cavern, 89. 
Khammurabi Stele, 27, 1 30-1 31. 
7 Kings 6\ 51, 1 54-160. 
Kinns, 213. 
Kleinert, 212. 
Kohath, 84, 127, 128. 
Kuenen, 106-107, 110. 
Kurkh Monolith, 198. 

Labashi-marduk, 231, 258, 263. 

Lamech, 65, 74-76, 85. 

L'Art de verifier les dates, 51. 

Layard, 198-221. 

Leah, 115, 119. 

Le Conte, 91. 

Legge, Dr., 103. 

Lepsius, 94, 162, 171-172, 192. 
Levi, 84, 127, 128. 

Lightfoot, Dr. John, 166, 169-170, 204. 
Livy, 30. 

Lloyd, Bp., 20-21, 49, 138, 153, 157, 162. 

180, 280. 
Lobbe, 49. 

Long numbers in Scripture : — 
480 years: 51, 154-160. 
450 years: 146-147, 151-152, 157. 
430 years : 1 16- 1 18. 
400 years : 1 16-1 1 8. 
390 years : 225. 
300 years: 139-146. 
70 years' Servitude : 222, 231, 234-237. 
70 years' Indignation : 235-237. 
70 years' Fasts : 236-237. 
23 years : 189-190, 222. 
Lucian, 29. 
Lumen, 54, 139, 270. 
Lyall, Sir Charles, 88, 91. 

Macdonald, 54. 
Mahalaleel, 65, 74, 75. 
Mahler, 162, 172. 
Malachi, 252. 
Malalas, 47. 
Malthus, 123. 

Manasseh, 188, 189, 216, 217, 228. 
Manetho, 18, 27, 82, 92-96, 99, 172, 193. 
Margoliouth, 27. 

Marshall, Benjamin, 54. 278-280. 
Marsham. Sir John, 49, 286. 
Mayers, 103. 

Menahem, 185, 200-203, 229. 
Menes, 92-96. 

Merenptah, 126-127. 161-162, 172. 
Mcrodach-baladan, 188,206, 210.213. 214. 
Methuselah, 65, 66, 74-76, 85. 
Mctonic cycle. 6_j. 

Meyer. Edouard, 04, 162, 172, 268. 
Midian, 142. 146-1 48. 152, 156. 
Milcah, 79. 
Milton, 1 17. 
Miriam, 134-136. 



IN DEX — continued. 



Moabite Stone, 27, 193-195. 

Mordecai, 224, 238, 250, 272. 

Mosaic authorship of Pentateuch, 106-1 1 3. 

Moses, 124-128, 132-137. 

Moulton, Prof. R. G.,^ 188. 

Nabonidus, 231, 258-259, 263. 
Nabopolassar, 163, 222-223. 
Nadab, 169, 177, 228. 
Nahor, the elder, 68, 77, 80-83, 87. 
Nahor, the younger, 79. 
Naville, M. Ernest, 126. 
Nebuchadnezzar, 188, 208, 222-227, 2 ^3, 
281. 

Nehemiah, 157, 238, 248-257, 264. 270- 
272, 278. 

Nergal-Sharezer (Neriglissar), 231, 238, 

263, 297. 
Nerus, 98. 

Newton, Sir J., 22, 24-25, 32, 49-50, 58, 

72-73, 103-106, 163, 286. 
Nicholas, Sir H., 54. 
Nicolas of Damascus, 257. 
Niebuhr, 59, 100, 101. 
Nineveh, 97, 195-221. 
Nippur, 101. 
Noah, 65-76, 84. 
Noah-Shem Connection, 67-69. 

Omri, 178, 194, 228. 
Oppert, 101, 207-221. 
Origen, 85, 165, 248. 

Othniel, 137, 138, 142, 146-148, 152, 156, 
168. 

Palmoni, 54. 

Parian Marble, 105, 288-291. 
Parsons, Dr., 85. 
Patizithes 269. 
Patriarchs : 

Ante-diluvian, 62-76, 81. 

Post-diluvian, 68, 76-87. 

Hebrew, 1 13-123. 
Pearce, Dr., 103-104. 

Pekah, 173, 185, 186, 200, 203, 204, 229. 
Pekahiah, 185, 204, 229. 
Peleg, 75, 77, 80-84, 87. 
Pengelly, 89. 

Persian Chronology, 18-25, 232-274. 
Persian Cuneiform Inscriptions, 259-263. 
Persian Kings, 18-25, 232-274. 
Petavius, 48, 92, 138, 153, 158, 162, 280, 
286. 

Petrie, Flinders, 94, 96, 162, 172, 192-193. 

Pezron, 49, 138. 

Phalec (Peleg), 85. 

Phanostratus, 285. 

Pharaoh, 115, 124-126, 132, 160-163. 

Pharaoh-necho, 222. 

Philistines, 139, 141, 143, 146-152, 156, 
168. 

Philo-Byblius, 17, 102. 
Phoenicia, 102. 



Plato, 242, 274. 
Playfair, 52. 
Pliny, 242, 286. 
Plutarch, 29, 104. 
Polybius, 28. 

Poole, R. Stuart, 92, 94, 95. 
Porphyry, 16-17, 284. 
Prideaux, 21, 24, 54, 99, 278-280. 
Proof, Nature of, 55-56. 
Pseudo-Smerdis, 233, 239-240, 258, 269. 
Ptolemaic Chronology, 18-21, 23, 25, 26- 

27, 32, 162, 278-281, 284-286. 
Ptolemy, Claudius, 18-20, 36-41, 284. 
Ptolemy's Canon, 18-21, 26-27, 37~4 l -> 5°< 

54, 66, 166, 200, 232, 248, 256, 264, 

265, 266, 271, 272, 278, 284-287, 

291-292. 
Pyramid, the Great, 93. 

Rachel, 11 5-120. 
Ramses, 126. 

Rawlinson, Canon George, 59, 92, 95, 100, 

102, 266, 286. 
Rawlinson, Sir Henry, 195-221, 261. 
Rehoboam, 169, 174-177, 191, 227. 
Rest of Esther, 243, 267, 272, 273. 
Reu, 77, 80-84, 87. 

Revised Version, 128-129, 154, 164-165. 
Rome, Era of, 32. 

Round numbers in Scripture, 167-169. 
Ruth, 140, 141, 143. 

Sachau-papyri, 26. 
Saint Maur, 51. 
Salah, 75, 77, 80-84, 87. 
Salisbury, Lord, 89. 
Sallust, 30. 

Samaritan Pentateuch, 15-16, 7 3-7 5, 79- 
84, 129. 

Samson, 14T, 143, 147, 148, 156. 
Samuel, 140, 143, 145, 147-152, 156, 157. 
Sanballat, 256, 272, 287. 
Sanchoniathon, 16-17, 102. 
Sarah, 79, 114. 

Sargon of Agade (Akkad), 100- 10 1. 
Sargon II, 188, 196, 205-210. 
Saros, 17. 

Saul, 143, 156, 157, 164-165, 168, 169. 
Sayce, Prof. A. H., 31, 57, 101, 125-126, 

162, 191, 196, 214. 
Sayce-Cowley papyri, 26. 
Scaliger, 21, 47-48, 95, 99-100, 243, 272, 

286. 

Schrader, 54, 195-221. 
Scrivener, 154. 

Sedar Olam Rabbah, 19, 23, 271-272. 
Sedar Olam Zeuta, 23, 244. 
Sennacherib, 188, 196, 208, 210-215. 
Septuagint, 15,73-76,79-86, 100, 121-122, 
129. 

Serug, 77, 80, 83, 87. 
Seth, 65, 74, 84, 86, 
Shah, 274. 



297 



INDEX — continued. 



Shallum, 175, 185, 229. 
Shalmaneser II (III), 196-199, 208, 220. 
Shalmaneser III (IV), 196. 
Shalmaneser IV (V), 188, 196, 205. 
Shamgar, 139, 141, 142, 146-148, 152, 156. 
Shem, 68, 69, 77, 80, 84, 87. 
Shishak, 191-192, 195. 
Siloam Inscription, 15. 
Smith, George, 195-221. 
Smith, Henry Preserved, 150. 
Smith, Philip, 161. 
Smith, Piazzi, 93. 
So = Shabaka, 191, 205. 
Solomon, 143, 145, 152, 156, 157, 167, 169, 
191. 

Solon and Croesus, 104. 
Sossos, 98. 

Sothic Cycles, 97, 171-172, 193. 
Stenning, 150. 
Strabo, 28. 
Suetonius, 31. 
Sundewitt, 92. 

Syncellus, 40, 46, 94, 96, 98, 99, 138, 153, 

220, 263, 268, 284-285. 
Synchronisms, 32, 44, 172, 174-175, 188, 

189-190, 199. 

Tacitus, 30-31. 

Tait, Prof., 89. 

Tartan, 210, 213-214. 

Tennyson, 188. 

Terah, 68, 77-83 86 87, 115. 

Terah- Abraham Connection, 67, 78-79. 

Tertullian, 282. 

Thales, 34, 286. 

Thebes, 217. 

Themistocles, 280, 291. 

Theophilus of Antioch, 44, 74-75, 80-81, 

84, 85, 138, 153. 
Theudas, 283. 
Thompson, Prof. J. A., 89. 
Thucydides, 28, 242, 273-274, 280, 291, 

292. 



Tibni, 178, 228. 

Tiglath-pileser III (IV), 104, 196, 199-204, 
208. 

Timaeus Siculus, 36, 44, 105. 

Tobiah, 251, 252, 255. 

Tobit, 21, 267. 

Tola, 142, 146-148, 152, 156. 

Trustworthiness of Testimony, 55-57. 

Turin Papyrus, 95-96, 192-193. 

Ussher, 21, 35, 48-49, 58, 63, 79, 87, 92, 
95, 103, 115, 137, 153, 154, 157-158, 
162, 166, 167, 176, 179, 184, 280, 
286. 

Uzziah, 157, 184, 185, 201-202, 227. 

Vague Egyptian Calendar year, 64, 97, 

171. 
Vossius, 265. 
Vulgar Christian Era, 33. 

Westcott and Hort, 154. 

Whitehouse, Owen C, 162, 192, 202. 

Wilkinson, Sir G., 94-96. 

" Without form and void," 62-63. 

Woodward and Cates, 54. 

Xenophon, 22, 28, 257, 259, 264, 267-268. 
Xerxes, 233, 239, 261-263, 271-274, 291. 

Year (Heb. Shanah), 72. 

Zachariah, 185, 229. 
Zacutus, 244. 
Zechariah, 185, 236-250. 
Zedekiah, 224-232. 

Zerubbabel, 238, 239, 247, 250, 254, 257. 
272. 

Zimri, 178, 228. 
Zumpt, 53. 



298 



SCRIPTURE REFERENCES. 



Genesis. 



2 6 

2 4 -3 

2 4 

3 15 

4 3 
5 1 

5 3.6 

5 9 

5 

5 

5 

7 6 
7 n 

8 4 

8 22 
IO 21 

I 



1 5. 1 8 

2 5- 2 8 



3 2 



2 fi 



I5 1 



1 0- 
1 0 
1 2 

1 4. 1 6- 1 8 

2 0- 2 2. 2 4 
2 6 

2 7_ I2 5 



l6 3 
l6 16 

17" 

21 5 

21 8-10 

22 1 8 

23 1 

2 ^ 2 0- 2 6. 2 

26 4 
26 3 4 
2 y 4 3. 4 4 

28 14 

29 20 
2 g 2 1- 3 0 

30 1- 2 2. 2 5. 
38-41 

4 j 7. 46. 47 

45 6 
4 6 5 - 27 

47 9. 2 8 

48 6 
49IO 

50 26 



IO9. 

62, 63. 

63. 

63. 

72. 

63. 
64. 

109. 

63. 

68, 113. 
252. 

65, 112. 
65. 

65. 85. 

65. 

65- 

65, 78. 
65-69. 

66, 69. 
69. 
72. 

65, 68. 
84. 

68, 69, 77. 
77> 85, 86. 
77- 
77- 

68, 77, 78. 

78. 

79- 

78, 113, 114. 
78, 113, 114, 
117. 

77- ii4- 
114, 116, 117, 

118, 127, 

128, 130. 
114. 
114. 
114. 
114. 

114, 117, 118. 

68. 
114. 
114. 

68. 
114. 

253- 
68. 

253- 
ii5- 
ii5- 
ii5- 
ii5- 
"5- 

118-122. 

"5- 
122. 

68. 

57, 115,117- 



Exodus. 



40 



1 °- 
r ii. 
2 n- 

2 2 3 

6 16- 

7 7 

I2 2.f 
12 2 
I2 2 9 " 
12 3 7 
12 4 °- 
I2 4 0. 



13 4 

14 2 8 

I5 19 

I6 1 

I? 14 

I9 1 ' 2 

20 5 
24 4 ~ 7 
34 22 
34 27 
40I 7 
40 20 



1 1 

2 32 
IQ 11. 1 ! 

IO 33 
II 20 
j 2 1 5- 1 

I3 1 - 20 
I 4 6 - 10 
I 4 33 
20 1 

20 2 8 
26 2 8- 

26 51 
26 5 7 " 
32 13 

33 2 
33 3 

33 3 8.39 



133 
125, 

132. 
72. 



132. 



132, 
I6l. 
124, 
I6l. 
127. 
124, 

133- 
64, 
133- 
123. 

133- 

114, 117, 118, 
125, 128, 
13°, 133. 
135, 136, 
146. 
64, 72. 

126. 

126. 

133- 



117, 
182. 
in. 

72. 
in. 
133, 

57- 



Numbers. 



133- 



146. 



134- 



135- 



. :i 7 



. 5 9 



133. 
123 
67. 134, 
I36. 

135- 
135- 
136. 

67, 134, 136. 
136. 
134- 
134- 
134- 
122. 

123. 
127. 

134- 
in. 

133- 
134- 



4" 

IO 22 

16 1 
17 8 
19 15 



Deuteronomy . 

134- 
in. 
146. 
in. 
122. 

64. 
in. 

60. 



24 1 

27 4 

31 9 ' 
31 2 

34 8 



1 -5 



2 

6 

10-12 
3 1-35 



! -I9 5 

1 6- 1 7 
2- 6 

2 6 

2 9-33 
2 9 



112. 

15- 
in. 
in. 

134- 



Joshua. 

133, 134. 135' 
no, III. 

134- 
134- 
134- 

134, !35- 
135- 

134, 135. 136. 



1- 
1 * 

1 1 

2 6 
2 7 - 

2 1 
3 7 
3 8 " 
3 1 

3 3 

4 1 
4 3 
5 6 ' 

5 3 
6 1 

8 2 
8 3 

9 2 
10 1 - 



10 ' 

IO 1 



IO 9 
IO 1 



16 

_ 2 10 

2. 1 3 



3 -9 



133, 134, !35- 
in. 

!37- 



136, 



67, 136. 
136. 

i~37- 
in. 
in. 
in. 
135- 
137- 
137- 



Judges. 



-12 



141, 234. 
142. 

137- 
146. 

137- 

140, 142, 144. 
142. 

137, 146, 148. 
142. 

141, 142, 146, 
148. 

142. 

146, 148. 

139, 141, 146, 
148. 

146, 148. 

142, 146, 14S. 
146, 148. 
142. 

146, 148. 
142. 

146, 148. 
146. 
148. 
143- 

140, 141, 144, 
145, 

144. 
143. 



148. 



299 



SCRIPTURE 



REFERENCES. 



Judges — cont. 



„ 14-28 

11 26 

I2 7 

12 8 
12 9 
12 1 1 
12 13 
I2 14 

I3*-i6 3 

I5 ,o 
i6 31 
17-21 

20 2 8 



i-7 

1 2 " 

2 19 

4 18 

7 2 " 1 

7 2 

7 9 

7 13 - 

8 4 

8« 
io 17 - 
10 2 ~° 

11 14 

12 19- 
I3 1 

I5 11 
2? 11 



I49. 

139, MO. 146. 
M3. M 8 - 
143- 
I48. 

143, I48. 

143- 

I48. 

M3- 
I49. 

139, MI. M 8 . 

140, 141, 148. 
I40, 141, 143. 

137- 



S ami tel. 

I 4 I - M5. 151 

72. 
116. 
253- 
149. 

150, 151. 

67, 149, 150. 
159- 

149, 150, 151- 
151- 
159- 
164. 
in. 
158. 
159. 
164. 
150, 
159- 
253- 



164. 





2 Samuel. 




2 1 1 


165. 




5 4-5 


165, 


169. 


7 12-1« 


68. 






253. 




j - 1 6. , 


166. 




21-24 


140, 


166. 


21 


166. 




22 


166. 




23 1-7 


166. 




2 ^ 8- :i ;i 


166. 




24 


166. 






1 Kings. 




2 u:J 


in. 





6 3 

7 1 
9" 
11 41 

j j 4 : 

11 4 ; 

12 21 
I 4 2 ' 
I 4 2 
M 2 

I5 1 - 

I5 9 



152, 154-160, 
166, 107, 
169. 

167. 

167. 

167. 

191. 

167, 169. 

227. 

228. 

177, 228. 
227. 
191. 
177. 



227. 
178,22; 



2 5- 3 3 

IO 8 

l6 10-lo 
l6 16-22 
l6 2 2- 2 8 

16 29 

I7 7 

22 1- 4 0 

22 l- 2 

22 4 1 - 4 2 
22 5 0 

22 51 



I 1 

I 2 



3 1 
3 4.5 

3 6-25 

3 2 6 " 27 

g 1 6. I 7 



(J 13. 2 4- 
9 29 

9 37 
io 19 - 25 - 
10 3 5 

jr. 3 6 



177, 178, 228. 

178, 228. 
I78. 
178. 

I78, I94, 228. 
I78, 229. 

253- 
179. 
199. 

173, 178, 227. 
227. 

170, 173, 180, 
229. 



2 Kings. 
194. 



1- 3- 4 
4- 2 1 
16-21 
1-2 1 



1 I 

I I 
II 

12 

13 ' 
I3 7 
I3 910 

I4 1 ' 2 
i 4 1B 

14 1T - 2 

T 4 2 1 

14 2 3 
14 2 - 2 
14 29 

15 1 
I5 12 
I5 2 
I5 8 

I5 8-10 

t5 13. I 

I5 17 

IS 18 " 2 

I5 19 
I5 2 3-2 

I5 2o-2 

I5 29 
I5 80 



I5 33 
I5 38 

10' 

I6 12 



176. 

170, 173, 176, 

179, 180, 

227, 229. 

I 73, 176, 180, 

227, 229. 
194- 
194. 
194- 

170, 173, 174. 

180, 227. 
195- 

180, 181, 227. 

229. 

227. 

186. 

182. 

229. 

183, 229. 
183, 227. 
182. 

183, 227. 
183, 227. 
183, 229. 
183. 

173, 174. 183, 
229. 

183, 227. 
229. 

183, 184, 227. 

184, 228. 

183, 184, 229. 
185. 

184, 229. 

174, 184, 185. 
228. 

185. 
184. 

185, 229. 
185, 229. 
229. 

255- 
200. 

185, 229. 
185, 204, 229. 
203. 

170, 173, 1S6, 

204. 
185, 228. 
173. 185. 
228. 

173- 
1 86, 



:28. 



16 2 




1 86, 187 


16 8 




9n,i 


I6 9 - 1 


6 


20? 
^ w .i ■ 


I6 20 




228. 


1 7 1 - - 


3 


220 


17 1 






17 4 




IQI 20^ 2(17 


17 24 






I8 1 




186. 


18 1,1 




t8t 9T O OlR 


l8 4 




187 


l8 9 " 1 


0 


180 188. 


18 1 3 - 


-19 ■ 


7 188 2T2 2TI 


18 1 :! " 


1 6 


2.1A 


18 13 




212, 213, 2I4. 


18 17 




2IO. 


18 3 °- 


20 1 


9 214 


19 3 7 




2T S 


20 l * fi 


1 L< 


1 2 l88, 212, 214. 


20 1 2 " 


2 1 


188. 


20 2 1 




228. 


21 1 




189, 228. 


21 1* 


1 4 


2l6, 219. 


2I 1 8- 


1 9 


189, 228. 


21 2:) - 


2 6 


228. 


22 1 




189, 228. 


2 3 36 




228. 


2 4 '- 2 




22 ~K. 


24 U - 8 




223, 228. 


24 7 




223. 


24 8 " 1 


6 


l88, 22 ->,. 


24 1 2 




263. 


2 4 17 - 


1 8 


228. 


25 1-2 




228. 


25 1-4 




227. 


25 1 




226, 230. 


o c 2- 8 
25 




l88, 227, 232. 


2cl8- 


21 


^ Z 7» 


2 r 2 3 




203 . 


25 2 5 




227. 


23 2 7 




231, 232, 263. 




I 


Chronicles. 


x 18. : 


4 


85, 86. 


I 28 




68. 



6 1-1 
~ 1 4 

7 

2 63 1 
29 2 7 



S 1 

9 30 

12 2 " 9 

13 20 
I(j l-3 

1 0 1 

I 7 7 - 9 

I8 1 

20 3 6 
21 

21 1 
21* 
2I 4 
21 11 



200, 203. 
227, 255, 270. 
122. 
167. 

165, l6(>, 169. 



Chronicles. 
1O7. 
167. 
167, 
191. 
170. 



169. 



73, 174, 224. 



170, 
in. 
179. 
179. 
176. 
170. 
180. 
179. 
179. 



181, 



300 



SCRIPTURE REFERENCES. 



170, 173, iSi ; 

224. 
112. 
57- 
72- 
112. 
1S3. 
202. 
204. 
180. 
187. 
187. 
187. 
212. 

216, 2 1 9. 
216, 217. 
216. 

255- 
112. 

I 12. 

223. 
224. 
19, 21, 23I 

234. 235, 

277. 



21,235, 237, 
260. 
238. 

224, 238, 264, 

271.^ 
238. 

112, 255. 

239- 

239, 241, 269. 
216, 217, 219. 

21, 233, 257. 
23. 233, 239, 
24O, 264, 
269. 
233, 239, 257. 
269. 
219. 
219. 



269. 



257. 
217, 

15, 
277. 
24O, 
24O. 

21, 240 
245, 270 

21. 
24I. 
241. 
233. 

233- 

238. 
241. 

233- 
238. 
274. 
233. 
233. 
233. 2 
250 
112. 

2^5- 

250. 

244- 



233. 
279. 



277- 
241. 



79- 



244. 

244, 270. 

243. 245. 
270. 



7 *-8 :{ 6 

y 1- 2 8 

7 1-5 
7 1 



/ 

7 12 

7 14 

7 2a 
8 15. 

g 3 1 
8 3 2 
833 

9 9 

IO 6 

io 9 - 1 



23- 

21, 233. 
227, 255 27O. 
233, 243, 244, 

245- 
112. 

230, 245, 248, 
250, 257, 
264, 270. 

112. 

251, 274. 

244, 264. 
112. 

269. 

245. 250. 
245, 250, 274. 
245- 

245, 250. 
245. 277. 
25O. 

245. 250. 
272. 



Nehemiah. 



2 b 

3 l 
320 

5 14 



6 10. 

6 17- 

7' . 

7 5 " ' 



8 1 
8 2 
8 4 
8 9 
8 1 
8 1 



8 18 

9 i. 2 
10 u 1 
10 1 
10 8 
10 2 H - 
10 2 9 
I2 i-.j 

12 1 
12 7 
I2 io. 



240, 245, 246 
249, 250, 

270. 

240, 251. 

248. 
238. 

21, 233, 24O, 
245. 248, 
2 49, 250, 
255. 257, 
27O. 
251, 272. 

246, 25 v 

246. 

233. 245, 250, 
253. 255, 
257. 27O, 
27I. 

251. 

250, 251. 

251. 255. 
251- 

238, 231. 
224, 238, 264 

271. 
246, 251. 
250, 251. 
246. 

4 G. 
5*- 



251- 



238, 
230, 
250. 
112, 
251. 
250. 
250. 

253, 254, 271. 

253- 

254- 

251- 

112. 

247> 253. 254. 
271. 

2 53- 
254- 
235- 



I2 2G 

I 2 4 3 -I 3 
p3 6. 3 8 

12 41 

T 3 1 
I3 4-3 1 

13 4 " 5 

i3 G 



I3'- J1 
13 7 

I3 io.n. 

I3 15.16. 
I3 28 



247. 248. 
246, 247, 248, 

255- 
251. 
246. 
251. 
112. 
251- 

251. 255- 

233. 245, 250, 
252, 253, 
255, 257, 

270, 
272. 

253- 
252. 
252. 
252. 
23. 25^ 
26O. 



271, 



256, 



2 9- 3 0 


252. 






Esther. 




I 1 " 5 


243. 


250. 


I 1 


242, 


2 73- 


I 3 


274. 




2 5.6 


224, 


238, 273 


2 8- 1 6 


245, 


250. 


3 7 


246, 


250. 


3 9 


242. 




"> 1 2 


246, 


250. 


5 1 


246, 


250. 


5 2 


246. 




5 8 


246, 


250. 


6 1-14 


246. 




y 2- 1 0 


246. 




7 4 


242. 




8 9-14 


246, 


250. 


9 1- 1 2 


246, 


250. 


g 13-27 


24O. 


250. 


IO 1 


242. 






Psalms. 




19 6 


72. 




99 6 


159- 





104 19 

109 1 1 5 



i-35 
7 l -9 1 
7 8 



3 6 ~39 
36-37 
38 

38 1 
39 

39 1 
39 s 
39 7 

|0— ()() 

44 

45 18 



72. 
182. 



Isaiah. 



188. 

203, 204. 
217. 

205, 208, 209, 

2IO, 214. 
188. 

188, 2 12. 
188. 
212. 
188. 

188, 212. 
188. 

188, 222. 
188. 

21, 235, 237, 
26f, 277. 

62. 



3 QI 



SCRIPTURE REFERENCES. 



Jeremiah. 



227. 

159. 
223. 

232, 234. 
175. 235. 
175, 188, 189, 

222, 263. 

32, 44- 175- 
189, 190, 
222. 

189, 190, 222. 

189, 222. 

204. 

204. 

222. 

225. 

204. 

234- 
225. 
226. 
188. 
222. 
223. 
223. 
226. 
227. 
227. 
222. 
223. 
204. 
227. 
226. 
227. 
230. 
223. 
226. 
230. 



Ezekiel. 



224, 225. 

225, 226. 
224, 225. 
224, 225. 
225. 
236. 

224, 226, 230. 
236. 

224, 226. 
224, 226. 
226. 

224, 230. 
226. 

224, 226. 
224. 

224, 230. 
224, 230. 
224, 230. 
230. 

224, 230. 



Daniel. 



222. 

232, 235, 263. 
223. 

237- 
223. 



5 

5 10 

5 16.29 

5 3 0-6 2 

^ 3 0- 3 1 

6 1 

6 28 

7 1 

8 1 

8 27 

9 2 

9 11 

g 16-19 

9 17 



10 
10 

10 ] 
10 

11 : 
II ; 

11 ! 

12 ; 



237- 
258. 



258. 



235, 



5 21 



258. 
263. 

259- 
237- 
231- 
273- 
231. 
231. 

231, 237 
237- 
235- 
112. 

235- 
239- 
20, 24, 

252, 276, 

282. 
237. 239- 
239. 
239- 
237- 
2 39, 
283. 
283. 
284. 



Amos. 
108. 

Nahum. 

191, 205, 209. 



283. 



Haggai. 



241. 

241, 249, 250. 

277. 

241. 

241, 250. 
241. 

249, 250. 
236, 238, 239, 

241, 249, 

250, 269. 
236, 238, 239, 

241, 269. 
236, 238, 239, 

241, 249, 

269. 
236, 238, 239, 

241, 269. 
241. 



Z cchar i ah. 



1 l ~ u 
1 1 
1 7 -» 
1 7 

1 1(5 

3 9 
46-1 

4 9 
7 1 
7 5 

£19 



24O, 24I. 
249, 25O. 
226, 236, 24I. 
24O, 249, 25O, 

257- 
236, 257. 
236, 241, 257. 
241. 
241. 
238. 

236, 243, 250. 
236, 244. 
236, 244. 



11 

24 



Malachi. 

1 1 280. 
i 7 - 14 252. 

2 1- 8 11-16 

3 8 252. 

4 4 112. 



St. Matthew. 

283. 
283. 
282. 

St. Mark. 
283. 

St. Luke. 

56. 
86. 

33- 
246. 
282. 

86. 

St. John. 
283. 
282. 
282. 
282. 
283. 
283. 
282. 
56. 



3 1-23 

3 2 

3 23 

3 36 



1 1 »■ 

2 23 

5 1 

6 4 
6 14 
4 0 



7 
12 1 
19 3 5 



Acts. 



r 81. 


2 2 


56. 


4 20 




56. 


586. 


3 7 


283. 


7* 




77- 78, 113. 


7 G 




II 4 . 




114, 117, 129, 






I30. 


7V 




1 1 8, II9, 121, 






122. 


7 23- 


3 0 


I24, 125, 132, 






l6l. 


13 1? - 


2 0 


137. M5. I4 6 > 



13 2 

9 l 

3 1 ' 

3 2i 



151. 154. 
155, 169. 
165, 169. 



Corinthians. 
50. 



Galatians. 



-4" 



114, 1 1 c>, 129, 

130. 
116. 



Colossians. 
1 0 - 1 4 86. 



1 John. 



56- 



Revelation. 
20 2J3. 



302